TOWARDS A PHONETIC AND PHONOLOGICAL TYPOLOGYOF POST-VELAR ARTICULATIONbyNICOLA JANE BESSELLB.A. Hons., Memorial University of Newfoundland, 1981B.A. Hons., University of Oxford, 1983M.St., University of Oxford, 1984A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFDOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHYinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(Department of Linguistics)We accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIADecember 1992© Nicola Jane Bessell, 1992In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)Department of ^wa-c3The University of Britis'F ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate ^DE-6 (2/88)AbstractThis dissertation develops a typology of post-velar articulation from the point ofview of available inventory, phonetic and phonological studies. The database on whichsuch typologies can draw is expanded by the examination of data from the Interior Salishlanguages of the Pacific Northwest. The post-velar inventory of Interior Salish isexamined acoustically in order to place it within the phonetic typology of post-velars asunderstood from work on Semitic and Caucasian. Pharyngeals from six Interior Salishlanguages are examined to determine the range of variation. The basic finding of thisacoustic work is that the Interior Salish post-velars are commensurate with what is knownabout post-velars based on Semitic data and articulatory modelling.Interior Salish phonological data support the extension of articulator-based featuregeometry to a fourth node, here termed Tongue Root. It is shown that the fourth node isrequired to class Interior Salish faucals and accommodate their participation in harmonyprocesses. Furthermore, constraints on the phonology of the fourth node in InteriorSalish suggest that we are dealing with an Advanced Tongue Root phenomenon such asfound in some African vowel harmonies. This is an encouraging result in the sense that itconfirms the existence of Tongue Root consonants and does not confine the fourth nodeto vowels. The analysis of Interior Salish laryngeals without the fourth node thatcharacterizes their Semitic counterparts corroborates our understanding of laryngeals aslacking Place specifications in the default case. Furthermore, it is argued that thedescriptivist and Dependency Phonology view of /2, h/ as minimal stop and fricative isphonologically appropriate. Evidence from epenthesis, laryngeal transparency anddebuccalization support the analysis of ii, h/ as (+consonantal, -sonorant, +/-continuant].Debuccalization and epenthesis processes also suggest that h/ do not necessarily bearLaryngeal Node features. It is argued that unless phonemic phonation features arepresent in an inventory, there is no need for /2, h/ to bear [constricted glottis, spreadglottis].It is noted that the phonology of post-velars in Interior Salish contrasts with theirpatterning in Semitic (McCarthy 1991) and Nisgha (Shaw 1991b), specifically withrespect to the representation of /2, h/. The presence of a fourth node in Interior Salishdoes not require that laryngeals be dependents of it. The same finding is reported byMcCarthy (1991) for Semitic. Given that there is no acoustic evidence at present tosuggest that we are dealing with distinct phonetic entities, it appears that therepresentation of laryngeals in languages with a fourth node must be stipulated.Table of ContentsAbstract^List of TablesList of Figures^ xiiAcknowledgments xvChapter One: Introduction1.0 Introduction^ 11.1 Aims of dissertation 41.2 Database^ 61.3 Outline of dissertation^ 9Chapter Two: Fourth node history2.0 Introduction^ 122.1 Early ATR assumptions^ 122.2 Traditional representations 132.3 Current proposals^ 152.3.1 Fourth node in Semitic^ 162.3.2 Fourth node in other languages 232.3.3 Fourth node for secondary articulations^ 252.4 Conclusions^ 24Chapter Three: Systemic typology of post-velars3.0 Introduction^ 273.1 Uvulars 283.2 Pharyngeals^ 29iv3.2.1 Pharyngealized consonants^ 343.2.2 Pharyngealized vowels 353.3 Glottals^ 353.3.1 Stop and fricative?^ 403.3.2 Secondary articulations on glottals^ 433.3.2.1 Rounding on glottals 433.3.2.2 Prenasalization on glottals^ 443.3.2.3 Palatalization on glottals 453.4 Aspiration and ejection^ 473.5 Conclusions^ 49Chapter Four: Phonetic investigations into post-velar articulation4.0 Introduction^ 504.1 The anatomy of post-velars^ 504.1.1 The major cavities 514.1.2 Places of articulation^ 514.1.3 Articulators^ 524.1.3.1 The tongue^ 524.1.3.2 The pharynx 554.1.3.3 The larynx^ 574.2 Articulatory descriptions of post-velars^ 594.2.1 Uvular stops^ 594.2.2 Uvular fricatives 604.2.3 Uvular trill^ 604.2.4 Pharyngeal stop 604.2.5 Pharyngeal fricatives/approximants^ 604.2.6 Epiglottal stop^ 614.2.7 Epiglottal fricatives^ 624.2.8 Glottal stop 644.2.9 Glottal fricatives^ 644.2.10 Summary 654.3 Natural language data^ 674.3.1 Semitic 674.3.1.1 Dorsals^ 694.3.1.2 Pharyngeals 714.3.1.3 Emphatics^ 754.3.1.4 Glottals 814.3.1.5 Vowel effects^ 814.3.2 Caucasian^ 854.3.2.1 Dorsals 854.3.2.2 Pharyngeals^ 854.3.2.3 Pharyngealized consonants and vowels^ 864.3.2.4 Glottals^ 884.3.2.5 Vowel effects 894.3.3 Interior Salish^ 914.3.3.1 Dorsals 914.3.3.2 Pharyngeals^ 934.3.3.3 Retracted coronals 974.3.3.4 Glottals^ 994.3.4 Khoisan^ 994.3.5 Nootka 1004.3.6 Hthda^ 1024.4 Acoustic consequences of post-velar articulation^ 1024.4.1 Uvulars and pharyngeals^ 1034.4.2 Emphatics ^ 1094.4.3 Glottals 1144.5 Summary and conclusions^ 115Chapter Five: Interior Salish Phonetics5.0 From acoustics to place of articulation^ 1185.1 The acoustic theory of speech production 1195.2 Moses-Columbia Salish: A case-study in post-velar articulation^ 1235.2.1 Methods^ 1245.2.2 Moses-Columbia: an overview^ 1265.2.3 Stressed vowels before coronals 1325.2 4 Stressed vowels before retracted coronals^ 1335.2.5 Stressed vowels before velars^ 1345.2.6 Stressed vowels before uvulars 1355.2.7 Stressed vowels before pharyngeals^ 1385.2.8 Stressed vowels before glottals 1405.2.9 Bilabials and Summary^ 1425.3 Pharyngeal Articulation^ 1455.3.1 Arabic pharyngeals 1475.3.2 Interior Salish pharyngeal articulation^ 1535.3.2.1 Kalispel-Spokane^ 1535.3.2.2 Colville-Okanagan 1595.3.2.3 Coeur d'Alene^ 1625.3.2.4 Shuswap 1675.3.2.5 Me?kepmxcin^ 1695.3.2.6 Moses-Columbian 1735.3.2.6.1 Voiced pharyngeals^ 174vivii5.3.2.6.2 Voiceless pharyngeals^ 1775.4. Conclusion^ 187Chapter Six: Post-velar phonology6.0 Introduction and overview^ 1906.1 Semitic^ 1946.1.1 Semitic gutturals^ 1946.1.2 Semitic emphatics 1996.2 Interior Salish^ 2046.2.1 Evidence for uvulars as Dorsals^ 2056.2.2 Evidence for uvulars and pharyngeals as Tongue Root^ 2096.2.3 Evidence for pharyngeals as Tongue Root resonants^ 2126.2.4 Coeur d'Alene^ 2236.2.4.1 Morpheme structure constraints^ 2296.2.4.2 Root patterns ^ 2306.2.4.3 Regressive Faucal Harmony^ 2326.2.4.4 Regressive Faucal Harmony formalized^ 2396.2.5 Regressive Faucal Harmony in other Interior Salish languages^ 2456.2.5.1 Spokane Regressive Faucal Harmony^ 2476.2.5.2 Kalispel Regressive Faucal Harmony 2496.2.6 Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony^ 2506.2.6.1 Type-i: Colville Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony^ 2536.2.6.2 Type-ii: Spokane and Kalispel Progressive PharyngealHarmony^ 2566.2.6.3 Type-iii: Coeur d'Alene, Shuswap, Lillooet^ 2616.2.6.3.1 Coeur d'Alene^ 2636.2.6.3.2 Shuswap 274viii6.2.6.3.3 Lillooet^ 2776.2.6.4 Type-iv: 1•11e2kepmxcin and Moses-Columbian^ 2786.2.6.5 Type-v: Retraction of consonants^ 2916.2.6.6 Summary of Salish^ 2946.3 African ATR systems 3006.4 An alternative: [-high, +back]^ 3056.5 Conclusions^ 312Chapter Seven: Glottal phonology7.0 Introduction^ 3167.1 The Sound Pattern of English^ 3207.1.1 Use of [+low] 3247.1.2 Glottals as [-consonantal, +sonorant] glides^ 3327.2 Malay^ 3387.2.1 Hiatus^ 3397.3.2 Transparency 3417.3 Debuccalization^ 3477.3.1 Stop > [2]; Fricative > [h]^ 3487.3.2 Stop > [h]^ 3547.4 fl, hi, Aspiration and Ejection^ 3607.5 Glottals and continuancy 3637.6 Underspecification and licensing^ 3677.7 Conclusions^ 371Chapter Eight: Conclusions and future research^ 374Bibliography and references^ 376AppendicesAppendix A: Interior Salish inventories^Appendix B: Interior Salish spectrogramsix405409List of TablesChapter ThreeTable 3.1: Distribution of uvulars^ 29Table 3.2: Distribution of pharyngeals with other post-velars^ 30Table 3.3: Distribution of pharyngeal fricatives^ 32Table 3.4: Distribution of glottals^ 36Table 3.5: Distribution of rounding 44Table 3.6: Distribution of palatalization^ 46Table 3.7: Distribution of aspiration and ejection^ 48Chapter FourTable 4.8: Arabic dorsals^ 70Table 4.9: Arabic pharyngeals 73Table 4.10: Arabic emphatics^ 80Table 4.11: Arabic vowels effects 83Table 4.12: Interior Salish uvular effects^ 92Table 4.13: Interior Salish pharyngeal effects 96Table 4.14: Interior Salish retracted coronal effects^ 98Table 4.15: Kyoquot vowel allophony (Rose 1981) 101Table 4.16: Klatt and Steven (1969): Constriction area 0.05 and 0.1 cm2^ 104Table 4.17: Alwan (1986): Constriction area 0.15 cm2, length of constriction 1 cm.105Table 4.18: Arabic post-velars (Alwan 1986)^ 107Table 4.19: Arabic post-velars (Ghazeli 1977) 107Table 4.20: Iraqi Arabic pharyngeals and glottals (Butcher and Ahmad 1987) ^ 108Table 4.21: Sudanese Arabic pharyngeals and reference vowels (Adamson 1981) 109Table 4.22: Alexandrian emphatic effects (al-Ani and el-Dalee 1984)^ 110xiTable 4.23: Egyptian Arabic emphatic effects (Norlin 1987)^ 111Table 4.24: Consonantal loci in Iraqi Arabic (Giannini and Pettorino 1982)^ 112Chapter FiveTable 5.25: Interior Salish Database^ 126Table 5.26: Summary of Nxa'amxcin articulatory effects: MM and JM^ 128Table 5.27: Plain, rounded, voiced and voiceless pharyngeal effects: MM^ 139Table 5.28: Ms-Cm place of articulation effects summarized: offset values^ 145Table 5.29: Formant values of pharyngeals examined in text^ 146Chapter SixTable 6.30: Guttural and faucal classes^ 191Table 6.31: Effects of post-velars on vowels (Kinkade and Thompson 1974)^ 220Table 6.32: Interior Salish Regressive Harmony onto roots or suffixes^ 246Table 6.33: Interior Salish Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony^ 252List of FiguresChapter FourFigure 4.1: Tongue musculature (Laver 1980) ^55Figure 4.2: Velopharyngeal muscles (Laver 1980) ^57Figure 4.3: Iraqi Arabic It!, It/ and /q/ (Giannini and Pettorino 1982)^77Figure 4.4: Tunisian Arabic: /g,x/ and /t,t/ (Ghazeli (1977) ^78Figure 4.5: Tunisian Arabic: /S/ before initiation (solid line) and during production(dotted line) in [Tx:li]. (Ghazeli (1977)^ 79Figure 4.6: Udi V1 (Catford !983)^ 88Figure 4.7: Palestinian Arabic short vowels: plain and emphatic^ 113Figure 4.8: Palestinian Arabic long vowels: plain and emphatic 113Chapter FiveFigure 5.9: Vocal tract with standing waves^ 121Figure 5.10: Ms-Cm Vowels at all POA, Stressed and Unstressed^ 130Figure 5.11: Ms-Cm Stressed Vowels^ 131Figure 5.12: Ms-Cm Vowels before Coronals 132Figure 5.13: Ms-Cm Vowels before Retracted Coronals^ 133Figure 5.14: Ms-Cm Vowels before Velars^ 134Figure 5.15: Ms-Cm Vowels before Uvulars 135Figure 5.16: Ms-Cm Vowels before Pharyngeals^ 138Figure 5.17: Ms-Cm Vowels before Glottals 140Figure 5.18: Uvular effects: ciqn 'digging' (Ms-Cm: MM)^ 141Figure 5.19: Glottal transparency: (kn) p'i?q 'I'm cooked, burnt' (Ms-Cm: MM)^ 142Figure 5.20: Ms-Cm labial effects: yaT'p(qin) 'many, lots'.: Speaker: ED^ 143Figure 5.21: Cadu 'enemy' (Colloquial Egyptian Arabic: SW)^ 148xiiFigure 5.22: ?aiwa 'yes' (Colloquial Egyptian Arabic: SW)^ 150Figure 5.23: sali:d 'happy' (Colloquial Egyptian Arabic: SW) 151Figure 5.24: halab 'he milked' (Colloquial Egyptian Arabic: SW)^ 152Figure 5.25: liast 'char' (Chewelah/Kalispel: AS)^ 154Figure 5.26: ?ay kwast 'tomorrow' (Moses-Columbian:MM)^ 155Figure 5.27: Ciast 'char' (Spokane: MS)^ 156Figure 5.28: Simt 'get angry' (Spokane: PF) 157Figure 5.29: p'aS 'burn' (Spokane: PF)^ 158Figure 5.30: hec yall'mi 'people are gathering' (Spokane: PF)^ 159Figure 5.31: Sitmn 'teeth' (Colville: CQ)^ 160Figure 5.32: pal 'grey' (Colville: CQ) 161Figure 5.33: xwuyt ciyalp 'they have arrived' (Colville: COD^ 162Figure 5.34: ?ar 'much, plenty' (Coeur d'Alene: LN) 164Figure 5.35: cic lay' 'I'm angry' (Coeur d'Alene: LN)^ 165Figure 5.36: mel'wns 'he broke it' (Coeur d'Alene: LN) 166Figure 5.37: Tipkn 'I'm angry' (Shuswap:BD)^ 167Figure 5.38: plpelt 'grey' (Shuswap:BD) 168Figure 5.39:^'dragging things around' (Shuswap:BD)^ 169Figure 5.40: Sis 'shrink' (Nie?kepmxcin: DS)^ 170Figure 5.41: calp 'ripped' (Nle?kepmxcin: DS) 171Figure 5.42: pal 'bleached by the sun; grey' (Nte?epmxcin: DS)^ 173Figure 5.43: l'1' 'brighe (Moses-Columbian: AB)^ 175Figure 5.44: nxwlank 'cave; hole in a hill' (Moses-Columbian: AB)^ 176Figure 5.45: scyaMmix 'they're gathering' (Moses-Columbian: AB)^ 177Figure 5.46: himt 'angry' (Moses-Columbian: AB)^ 178Figure 5.47: ph 'grey' (Moses-Columbian: AB) 179Figure 5.48: kihana 'teenage girl' (Moses-Columbian: AB)^ 180xivFigure 5.49: ?dhwa? 'cough' (Moses-Columbian: AB)^ 181Figure 5.50: ha2lcw61"Are you warm enough?' (Moses-Columbian: AB)^ 183Figure 5.51: pax(paxt) 'wise' (Moses-Columbian: AB)^ 184Figure 5.52: CEA /h/ spectra at initiation (top) and midpoint (bottom).^ 185Figure 5.53: Moses-Columbian [hi spectra at initiation (top) and midpoint(bottom) 186Figure 5.54: Moses-Columbian [h]: spectra at midpoint^ 187Figure 5.55: Moses-Columbian [x]: spectra at midpoint. 187Chapter SixFigure 6.56: Coeur d'Alene vowels : stressed and unstressed^226Figure 6.57: Coeur d'Alene Stressed Vowels 227Figure 6.58: Coeur d'Alene vowels:means ^299Chapter SevenFigure 7.59: [skixzeh] 'mother' (1•1101cepmxcin: DS)^ 336AcknowledgmentsI thank my committee members, Patricia A. Shaw (Chair and Supervisor), EwaCzaykowska-Higgins, M.Dale Kinkade and Mark Y. Liberman. This dissertation owes aparticular debt to Patricia Shaw, who has always insisted that I think carefully and has nottolerated cavalier phonology. Her example as a fine phonologist with unusual respect forfieldwork has obviously influenced the orientation and execution of this dissertation.Ewa Czaykowska-Higgins supplied countless hours of official and unofficial consultationon Salish and general linguistic issues, consultation and company on fieldwork, and acritical eye not deterred by friendship. Her generous, disciplined and detailed attention tothis dissertation has improved it immeasurably. I also thank M. Dale Kinkade who(along with Mandy Na?zinek Jimmie) first introduced me to the initially alarmingwonders of Interior Salish and encouraged phonetic work on the languages. Thisdissertation has clearly benefitted from the depth of his unique scholarship and hiswillingness to share it. I am grateful to Mark Liberman for generously supporting myresearch in innumerable practical and psychological ways, not the least of which wasgranting me access to the Phonetics Lab at the University of Pennsylvania and welcomingme to an exciting and exacting research community.I owe a major debt to the Salish speakers whose data are represented here.Obviously this would be a very different dissertation without their input and we would allknow less about Interior Salish phonetics and phonology as a consequence. I especiallythank Agatha Bart, Elizabeth Davis, Mandy Nahinek Jimmie and Mary Marchand forfriendship and encouragement as well as consultation. I also thank Lavinia Clark, BasileDeNeau, Pauline Flett, Nora Jimmie, Blanche LaSartre, Lawrence Nicodemus, CharlieQuintasket, David Shooter, Margaret Stensgar and Jimmie C'al' Toodlican. I thank BarryCarlson for providing recordings of Margaret Sherwood and Alex Sherwood, M.D.Kinkade for recordings of Jerome Miller, Linda Walsh for recordings of Bertha Azak(Nisgha), Ivy Doak for assistance with Coeur d'Alene and Dwight Gardener for assistancewith Shuswap.I also thank Andre-Pierre Benguerel for commentary on phonetic work, advice,and general interest in my work. Bruce Bagemihl and Keren Rice also commented onearly versions of some chapters. For encouragement and professional advice I thank IvyDoak, Douglas Pulleyblank, Edwin Pulleyblank and Mike Rochemont, as well as friendsand colleagues in Vancouver, Philadelphia and elsewhere: Helmi Braches, Gene Buckley,Henry Davis, lain Higgins, Katherine Hunt, Mandy Nahinek Jimmie, Bill Reynolds,Mark Steeciman, Yan Feng Qu, Bonnie Webber, Christine Zeller and Katya Zubritskaya.I especially thank Bruce Bagemihl and Mary Peckham for their steady friendship. I amgrateful to Carmen da Silva for administration at UBC.The fieldwork on which much of this dissertation is based was made possible bygrants from the Phillips Fund to Nicola Besse11, and Jacobs Fund and SSHRCC grants toEwa Czaykowska-Higgins. I gratefully acknowledge all sources of funding.My final acknowledgement goes to my family, and to Gregory Provan forpatience and wisdom that exceed my own.XV[ant][lat]Chapter One: Introduction1.0 IntroductionThere has been considerable research activity since Clements' (1985) article "Thegeometry of phonological features" on the restructuring of phonological feature theoryfrom flat or linear feature representations to hierarchical ones. A major advance is Sagey(1986), who develops a model of feature geometry grouping some of the terminal featuresof Clements (1985) into articulator node constituents. Sagey (1986) argues for three sucharticulator nodes: Labial, Coronal and Dorsal, represented here under an organizing node,termed Place.(1) Sagey (1986)ROOTLaryngeal^ [consonantal][?tr. gl]^ cont]spr. gl .]stiff v.c.]^Supralaryngeal[slack v.c]1Soft Palate[nalall^Labial/[rd]Place1 Coronal1^Dorsal[distr]^[low]^/ \[high][back]Ladefoged and Maddieson (1988) and Ladefoged and Halle (1988) propose theaddition of a fourth articulator node 'Tongue Root' dominating a feature [ATR] (or[Advanced Tongue Root]). The resulting geometry under Place is as in (2).DorsalPlaceLabialI[round][distributed][anterior]Coronal[lateral][high][back][low]Tongue Root(2) Cole (1987), Sagey (1988)It was originally suggested that the fourth node is needed to account for tongueroot harmonies as found in the vowel systems of some Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Kordofanian languages. Its restriction to vowel representation is odd though, particularlyin light of recent work examining the phonological interaction between consonant andvowel features under all articulator nodes (Gorecka 1989, Clements 1991, E. Pulleyblank1989, 1992, Shaw 1991a,b, Hume 1992). However, Cole (1987) uses a fourth nodedominating a feature [±ATR] for her account of the Coeur d'Alene post-velars andHayward and Hayward (1989) and McCarthy (1991) propose that the Semitic 'guttural'class which is composed of uvulars, pharyngeals and glottals, also requires a fourth node.McCarthy (1991) departs from the model in (2) in several interesting ways. He proposesthat articulator geometry be complemented by place-of-articulation geometry so that thenodes under Place now designate places of articulation rather than articulators. Thisreflects a phonological division of the vocal tract into Oral and Pharyngeal places ofarticulation. The original three articulators of Sagey (1986) fall under the Oral place, thefourth node Pharyngeal falls under the Pharyngeal place.2(3) McCarthy (1991)Place 0OralDorsal[lat][distr[pharynge ]^\[radical]PharyngealLabial/[rnd]^Coronal[ant][back]Our most developed understanding of the phonetics and phonology of post-velarconsonantal articulation comes from Semitic, which plays a dominant role in extensionsof feature geometry to a fourth node.1 This limitation invites several obvious questions:What happens in other languages with similar post-velar inventories (i.e. with uvulars,pharyngeals and glottals); Do these languages support the proposed modifications tofeature geometry and/or the universality of these proposals; What is the cross-linguistictypology of post-velar phonetics and phonology?Here I must clarify some terminology. The class which I term post-velars consistsof uvulars, pharyngeals and glottals. Uvulars are generally made at the very rear of thesoft palate, where the oral and pharyngeal cavities intersect. Pharyngeals seem to varysomewhat in precise location within the pharynx, but constriction narrows the pharyngealcavity rather than the oral one. Glottals are made by vocal fold gestures within thelarynx. I use the term 'post-velar' as a neutral descriptive term for this class of segments,referring to their general place of articulation. The term 'pre-uvular' will designatelAlthough Cole (1987) proposes a fourth node for Coeur d'Alene, she does not attempt to justify herinnovation beyond Coeur d'Alene harmonies.3articulation anterior to the intersection of the oral and pharyngeal cavities. Neither ofthese terms is common, but their designations are fairly apparent. A neutral descriptiveterm is necessary since it is not the case that all post-velars are gutturals in the senseestablished by Semitic phonology.1.1 Aims of dissertationThis dissertation addresses the general issues raised by current proposals for afourth node and evaluates data relevant to an inquiry into the phonetics and phonology ofpost-velar articulations. It does so in part by laying the groundwork for typologies ofpost-velar articulation in three areas: gross systemic, phonetic and phonological. It isargued that typological work in each of these domains contributes to our understanding ofpost-velar activity in a larger context.A gross systemic typology of post-velar articulation is developed on the basis ofthe distribution of post-velar consonants in the 693 inventories contained in Ruhien(1975). This dissertation also expands the post-velar database by examining data fromthe Interior Salish languages of the Pacific Northwest. These languages have extensivepost-velar inventories which have not been examined acoustically. Given the rarity ofpharyngeal articulation in general, it is important to establish the phonetic composition ofthe Salish post-velar class. Developing a phonetic typology enables the Salish data to becompared to Semitic and Caucasian post-velars.The Interior Salish post-velars are also phonologically active as a class. Theirpatterning, however, explicitly excludes laryngeals. This contrasts with ourunderstanding of the Semitic guttural class, which includes laryngeals and so motivatesthe Pharyngeal node in (3) as a place of articulation node. Given the disparity betweenSalish and SemiticlNisgha post-velar phonology, the proper phonetic identification ofthese sounds in each language group is important. Are we in fact dealing with the 'same'4segments? These issues are critical to the proper representation of post-velars and thegeneral development of an adequate feature geometry.Within the overall research paradigm pursued here, the major questions addressedare the following:(i) What exactly are the phonetic facts of post-velar articulation?Phonetic descriptions of post-velar articulation are bewildering in their variety.More specifically, considerable confusion arises over:• The involvement (or lack thereof) of the tongue root in uvular, pharyngeal,glottal and emphatic articulation. Descriptions vary as to the contribution oftongue root activity to some and/Or all of these articulations.• The interaction of tongue root activity with constriction of the pharyngeal wallsand/or faucal pillars to achieve post-velar articulation or emphatic/retractioneffects.• The role of the larynx in pharyngeal articulation and the role of the pharynx inlaryngeal articulation. Does the frequent laryngealization of pharyngeals, forexample, suggest a relationship between these two segments which is beyond thephonetic? Are there in fact two types of laryngeals—those which pattern withpharyngeals (as in Semitic) and those which do not (as in Salish)?(ii) How do the phonetics and phonology of post-velar articulation in Salish and Semiticcompare with what is known about African ATR systems? This question is relevantsince the fourth node was originally proposed for ATR systems.5(iii) What kind of feature geometry is necessary to capture the phonological patterning ofpost-velar articulation in Semitic and Salish, while still accommodating the facts ofAfrican ATR systems?1.2 DatabaseThe answers to these questions are not immediately apparent for several reasons.First of all, both uvulars and pharyngeals are quite rare cross-linguistically. While labial,coronal and velar consonants are found in virtually every language, uvulars occur in 21%of Ruhlen's (1975) sample of 693 languages and 14.8 % of Maddieson's (1984) sample of317 languages. Pharyngeals are rarer still. They occur in 7% of Ruhlen's (1975) sample,and 4% of Maddieson's (1984) sample. It turns out that the effect of the putativepharyngeal node/site for consonants can be explored only in three languages groups.Apart from the Afro-Asiatic data examined by Hayward and Hayward (1989) andMcCarthy (1991), post-velar inventories which include pharyngeals are known fromlanguages spoken in two other areas of the world: the Caucasus mountains of the formerSoviet Union, and the Northwest Coast of the North American Continent. Many of theNW and NE Caucasian languages have inventories of post-velars that surpass those foundin Semitic (see Colarusso 1988). Of the wealth of indigenous languages of NW NorthAmerica, the combination of uvulars, pharyngeals, glottals and retracted coronals appearsexclusively within the Interior branch of Salish. Outside Salish, phonemic pharyngealsare found in the Wakashan language Nootka, some Northern dialects of Haida (alanguage isolate), and in the Stoney dialect of Dakota (Siouan). In both Nootka(Jacobsen 1969) and Haida (Krauss 1979, Levine 1981) the pharyngeals are derivedhistorically from uvulars, but the Stoney pharyngeals (h, C) are derived from what areanalysed as phonemic velar fricatives (Shaw 1980).A second problem is that the rich tradition of phonetic and phonologicalinvestigation in Semitic is not always matched in other language groups of interest. As6McCarthy (1991) comments, very little is known about the phonology of the Caucasianlanguages, despite their obvious importance. A considerable body of writing in Russianand other Soviet languages on Caucasian exists but much of this material is not easilyaccessible to readers in the West. The most notable exception to this generalization isColarusso's thesis (1975, 1988), written in English and detailing a vast spectrum ofprimarily phonetic and comparative information on the Northwest Caucasian languages.As for the languages of the Pacific Northwest, Krauss (1979:895) remarks that thelevel of description required for valid phonological analysis is not yet achieved in workon Haida. For Nootka, there is the work of Sapir (1911, 1938) and Sapir and Swadesh(1939). The phonologies of the Wakashan languages in general are intriguing to say theleast (see Lincoln and Rath 1986 for Haisla, Rose 1981, Stonham 1990 for Nootka).However, very little work has focussed specifically on the phonological behaviour ofNootkan pharyngeals. There is an obvious need for fieldwork to concentrate on thisaspect of Nootka. This leaves Salish.Within the Interior branch of Salish readily accessible research material is scanty,with the fruits of many years' laborious fieldwork often confined to theses or regionallydistributed grammars and dictionaries. There are, however, numerous articles on aspectsof these languages to be found, particularly in the International Journal of AmericanLinguistics (IJAL). Within the compass of what is available on Interior Salish, much canbe learned about post-velar patterning from these languages. Reichard's (1938) grammarof Coeur d'Alene identifies a class of segments with post-velar articulation whichconditions a rule of regressive vowel-lowering across morpheme boundaries. Ofimmediate interest is the fact that 12, hi are not members of this class, although uvularsand pharyngeals are. This finding is corroborated by Sloat (1966, 1975, 1980) and Doak(1992). Kinkade (1967) identifies the presence of pharyngeal resonants throughoutInterior Salish and includes them in a class of 'back' consonants which historicallyconditioned lowering of preceding vowel quality (Kinkade and Sloat 1972, Kinkade and7Thompson 1974). Mattina (1979) isolates a rule of Pharyngeal Movement in certainroots which subsequently lowers stressed vowels in suffixes. Although PharyngealMovement proper is proposed for Colville, the presence of cognate 'retracting roots'containing vowels of a lowered/dark/retracted timbre has been an issue in Salish studiesfor some time. Clearly, Interior Salish critically affects issues of post-velar phonology.Unfortunately, almost no acoustic work exists on the large and very interestingSalish inventories. There is a general lack of systematic phonetic information on most ofthe indigenous languages of the region, although there are a number of comprehensivephonological and morphological accounts available.This dissertation focusses on Interior Salish data, given its obvious relevance tothe theoretical issues sketched above and the acute need for continued documentation ofthese languages. Salish is spoken on the Pacific northwest coast of the North Americancontinent from the north Oregon coast as far north as Bella Coola in British Columbia,though not in an unbroken line, as Bella Coola is suffounded by Wakashan languages tothe north and south and by Athabaskan languages to the west. From this coast, Salish isspoken as far east as western Montana. Much of what is now Washington State waspeopled by Salish speakers at the time of contact with Europeans, their presenceextending across the Canada-United States border to encompass vast areas of southernBritish Columbia. Thompson (1979) divides the family into three divisions: Coastal,Tsamosan and Interior. 2 The Interior languages with which this dissertation is primarilyconcerned are divided into Northern and Southern groups, the constituency of which isgiven in (4).2Bella Coola is an isolate belonging to none of these three groups.8(4) Interior Salish3Academic name^Native nameNorthern^Lillooet^S^'imxcinLil'watThompson^NiekepmxcinShuswap SxwepmxcinSouthern^Moses-Columbian^NxahmxcinColville-Okanagan^Sxwy2ifpxSnSickstxKalispel-Spokane-Flathead NqlispeliknNpoqiniknCoeur d'Alene^Sn6icu?niknColvilleLakes91.3 Outline of dissertationThis dissertation is organized as follows. Chapter 2 outlines the research contextin which proposals for a fourth node have been made and documents current applicationsof the fourth node. It is noted that most fourth node proposals are based on either AfricanATR or Semitic data. This raises the question: what other languages motivate a fourthnode and how does the phonetic quality and phonological behaviour of post-velars insuch languages reflect on what is known from Semitic and African systems. As one31 note here that in many cases the academic term for a given language often covers several dialects. Theparent constituency as constructed by linguists is not necessarily recognized by speakers themselves. Asfar as I know, for example, there is no term for the dialect continuum termed Colville-Okanagan.Frequently the native term for a given dialect centres on the name of the people for themselves. Thus, theNie2kepmx are the Thompson people, so named in English after the Thompson River gorge, the lowerportion of which is central to their territory (Thompson and Thompson 1992). Their language isNle?kepmxcin, the language of the N4e2kepmx people. As a consequence of this practice, there can be asmany language names as groups of people identified, even though the differentiation may be minimal froma linguistic point of view. As a consequence, I have retained the academic terms for the various languagesas defined by linguists. However, I make one exception and refer to Thompson by the name1\14e2kepmxcin. For Nte?kepmxciui the major written sources (Thompson and Thompson 1990, Thompsonand Thompson 1992) are based on data from the central part of Thompson territory which the termN4e2kepmx properly designates. Furthermore, since Mandy Na2zinek Jimmie, a linguist, friend andspeaker of N4e7kepmxcin prefers that the language be referred to as Nle?kepmxcin, I choose to respect herwishes. I realize that this decision is in some senses arbitrary.response to these questions, Chapter 3 develops a gross systemic typology of post-velarphonology based on data from Ruhlen (1975). This survey documents the occurrence ofpost-velar articulation in a fairly large sample of languages and establishes some sense ofthe statistical likelihood of co-occurrence within the post-velar class. The generalfindings are that uvulars are not dependent on the presence of pharyngeals or glottals inan inventory; inventories with pharyngeals are highly likely to have uvulars and glottals;the presence of glottals alone does not imply the presence of uvulars or pharyngeals.These findings, while suggestive, are not presented as definitive given the need for aclose phonological investigation of post-velar activity in individual languages. Chapter 4examines the phonetic aspects of post-velar articulation based on vocal tract anatomy,descriptions of post-velars in natural languages and the acoustic consequences of post-velar articulation. This lays the basis for evaluation of the Salish phonetic data presentedin chapter 5. The first part of chapter 5 undertakes a detailed acoustic investigation ofpost-velar segments and their effects on adjacent vowels in Moses-Columbia Salish. Thisenables an estimation of place of articulation for the Interior Salish post-velars. Thesecond part of chapter 5 examines the acoustic characteristics of pharyngeals asmanifested throughout Interior Salish. This investigation is based primarily on datagathered in my own fieldwork but includes analysis of some data which has kindly beenmade accessible to me by other researchers.4 The information from the acousticinvestigation of Interior Salish pharyngeals is compared with the Semitic data and what isknown about Caucasian. The acoustic profile of Salish post-velars indicates that theimpressionistic accounts of them are entirely appropriate: uvulars are uvulars,pharyngeals are pharyngeals and glottals are glottals. As a consequence, the Salish post-velars are comparable to their Semitic counterparts, bearing in mind that no twolanguages have exactly the same articulatory settings. What is more interesting is thephonological divergence of the two language groups. Chapter 6 presents a phonological4In particular I thank Barry Carlson for making Spokane data available to me, and M.D. Kinkade foradditional data on Moses-Columbia Salish.10typology of post-velar behaviour as it is manifested in the seven Interior Salish languagesand compares the results with the outcome of McCarthy's (1991) work on Semitic and theconsensus of work on African ATR systems. The major theoretical findings here are (i)Interior Salish motivates a fourth node to characterize the behaviour of its post-velars; (ii)laryngeals are not characterized by this fourth node; (iii) the phonology of Salish post-velars appears to be sensitive to constraints also found in African ATR systems. Sincethe representation of glottals divides Salish and Semitic, Chapter 7 closely examinesglottal phonology. It is argued that 12, h/ are Placeless obstruents bearing continuancyvalues, and that in the default case, they do not bear Laryngeal Node features. Based onthis, it is concluded that the Semitic and Nisgha paradigm is typologically unusual.11Chapter Two: Fourth node history2.0 IntroductionThis chapter reviews the research motivating a fourth node and documents thevarious proposals for its instantiation in Semitic, Salish and Nisgha. There isconsiderable variation across proposals, much of it having to do with the phonologicalrepresentation of segments involving more that one articulator node.2.1 Early ATR assumptionsIt has been noted that the fourth node was originally introduced to integrate thedescription of African ATR harmonies into a feature geometric framework. Theassumption that ATR harmonies require a fourth node reflects the disparity between thetraditional vowel features [high, back, low] and our understanding of ATR systems. Thisof course raises the question: what defines an ATR harmony system?ATR harmonies are found in many Sub-Saharan African languages. They maynot only be morpheme-controlled (e.g. the root or suffix vowel determines the vowelquality of other morphemes) but may also have dominant and recessive vowel sets. Inthe latter case, dominant vowels trigger harmony regardless of what morpheme they arefound in, thereby erasing the root-affix distinction discussed above. The result of theseharmonies is that specified domains usually have vowels from one of the two sets only.Typically, the vowels of one set are transcribed as higher in vowel space thancorresponding vowels in the other set. The higher set of vowels is often described as'breathy, hollow, muffled', whereas the lower set is often recorded as sounding 'hard,creaky, brassy' (Stewart 1971). Such vowel systems are often (but by no meansexclusively) composed of ten vowels, five in each set, of the sort /i, e, 3, 0, u/ versusIt, E, a, o, u/. The first set, often labelled 'close' is the relatively higher and12breathy/muffled/hollow set, while the second set, often labelled 'open' is the relativelylower and hard/brassy/creaky set.The articulatory basis of this distinction has been argued to be tongue rootposition rather than tongue body height such as traditional transcriptions would suggest.Ladefoged (1964) demonstrates from X-rays of Igbo (Kwa) that tongue root displacementis the most salient articulatory distinction between the two sets of vowels. Crucially, heshows that tongue root position is to some extent independent of tongue height. Forinstance, two vowels may have the same tongue height in the mouth but differ in tongueroot position. This and other research led to the distinction being referred to as'advanced/unadvanced tongue root', or ATR as we now know it. This physiological basisfor African ATR systems has been confirmed by the work of Stewart (1967), Painter(1973) and Jacobson (1978). Subsequent work has pointed to the reduction in pharyngealarea as a consequence of retracting the tongue root for the unadvanced vowel set (Delattre1971, Lindau 1979). Despite the sometimes complex and variable articulation of ATRcontrast, it has been assumed that a single phonological feature can account for the vastmajority of the data.Ten vowel systems of the sort /i, e, 3, 0, u/ versus It, e, a, o, u/ are of courseextremely difficult to describe in terms of the three heights afforded by the variouscombinations of [+/- high] and [+/- low]. Such systems call for another feature,independent of phonetic arguments that tongue root retraction, as opposed to tongueheight, is the articulatory instantiation of harmony.2.2 Traditional representationsAn independent source of evidence motivating the fourth node can be found byconsidering the difficulties which conventional feature analyses have had withcharacterizing post-velar segments.13As noted in Chomsky and Halle (1968), Kenstowicz and Kisseberth (1979) andMcCarthy (1991) among others, distinctive feature theory must at least be able todescribe all the distinctions made in any of the world's languages, and it must be able torepresent the set of natural classes in the world's languages. On the first count, thefeatures used in Chomsky and Halle (1968) are problematic. Chomsky and Halle (1968)characterize velars, uvulars and pharyngeals as follows:(1)^Velars^Uvulars^Pharyngealshighlowback +However, both Colorusso (1988) and Catford (1983) confirm that the Byzb dialectof Abkhaz (a Caucasian language) contains plain velars, uvulars, pharyngeals andpharyngealized uvulars in phonemic contrast. The feature array in (1) cannot describesuch segments without simultaneously eradicating the distinctions between them.Problems with the use of the Chomsky and Halle (1968) features for post-velarconsonants are further discussed in Kenstowicz and Kisseberth (1979), Czaykowska-Higgins (1987), Keating (1988) and McCarthy (1991). Czaykowska-Higgins (1987)notes that Arabic emphasis is not well described in terms of the features in (1). Whetheremphasis is uvularization or pharyngealization, the spread of [+back] predicts thatemphatic vowels become [+back]. This is empirically false: emphatic vowels may wellback slightly but they do not become [+back]. McCarthy (1989), echoing currenttheoretical concerns with the articulatory integrity of features, notes that [high, back, low]are tongue body features, and that neither uvulars nor pharyngeals are correctly classifiedusing these features. Uvulars are deemed [-high] in (1), whereas their articulationinvolves raising the dorsum. Pharyngeals are [+low ,+back] in tongue position, but also14involve articulators (pharynx wall, epiglottis, tongue root) which bear no straightforwardrelation to tongue body activity. Thus, reports of so-called 'fronting' from pharyngealsmay be explained if pharyngeals lack any dorsal representation. Columbian Salish, forinstance, is recorded with slightly fronted low vowels in the environment of voicelesspharyngeals (but never uvulars: Kinkade 1967:232), as are some dialects of Arabic(Harrell 1957), demonstrating some degree of independence between the tongue body andthe tongue root.2.3 Current proposalsEarly proposals for the fourth node do not attempt to examine the interaction ofthe Radical/Tongue Root node with other articulator nodes or with other segments in theinventories of languages with tongue root activity.1 This is not surprising since thelanguages for which the fourth node was originally proposed do not seem to have tongueroot consonants2 and, almost without exception, ATR vowel harmonies proceed withoutaffecting consonants at all.Czaykowska-Higgins (1987) explicitly compares the qualities of ATR-typesystems with languages such as Arabic and Salish which have post-velar consonants. Sheargues for a distinction between the features [retracted tongue root] and [advanced tongueroot]. Languages which have uvular, pharyngeal, glottal and retracted coronal segmentsin their inventories are characterized by the presence of a fourth node Tongue Root whichdominates two features: [upper pharynx] and [lower pharynx]. Activation of the fourthnode implies retraction of the tongue root (and is [RTR] in this sense) but the feature[ATR] is independent of the fourth node, being active instead in languages with voice-quality distinctions on its vowels. The resulting feature combinations under the Tongue1Cole (1987) is something of an exception to this statement in the sense that she uses the fourth node forpost-velars. She does not, however, defend this analysis outside Coeur d'Alene.2For example, of the 51 Niger-Kordofanian languages in Ruhlen (1975) two have some post-velars:Ngemba and Ewe have /CA but no uvulars. Of the twenty-five Nilo-Saharan languages, Tama has /11/ and nouvulars.15Root node capture the necessary distinctions between uvulars and pharyngeals on the onehand and emphatic (uvularized) pharyngeals (such as found in some Arabic dialects) orpharyngealized uvulars (Bzyb) on the other hand.(2) Czaykowska-Higgins (1987)q^ciT^CGI^Xr (=rhotacization)Upper Pharynx^+^+Lower Pharynx^+^+^+Czaykowska-Higgins' proposal does not rely on the double articulation of uvulars asDorsal-Pharyngeal, although this type of configuration is suggested as a way to capturevelar blocking of Tongue Root features in West Greenlandic and Chilcotin.2.3.1 Fourth node in SemiticThe most recent, fully documented discussion of relevant, mostly Semitic materialis that of Hayward and Hayward (1989) and McCarthy (1991), both of whom formalizewhat has often been remarked on in descriptive studies of Semitic languages—thatuvulars, pharyngeals and glottals function as a class for the purposes of a number ofphonological phenomena. This class is traditionally referred to as the 'gutturals'.Hayward and Hayward (1989) suggest a 'zone' is required to characterize the gutturals.One of McCarthy's innovations based on Semitic data is to propose that nodes underPlace in the feature geometry tree are place of articulation nodes, since it is only on thisassumption that 12, h/ can be grouped with /x, i , h, S/ in Semitic phonology. Proposalsprior to McCarthy (1989, 1991) follow Sagey (1986) in assuming that all nodes underPlace, including the fourth node, are articulator nodes. (3) below summarizes the formaldetails of McCarthy's proposal:16Larynge[cstr. gl][spr. gl .]Place 0haryngeal[dorsal]^[radical][pharyngeal]OralLabial/[rnd] CoronalDorsal[low]7[high][back][ant][lat][clistr](3) McCarthy (1991)r sonorant 1L consonantal _I17nasal]cont]Features and nodes under Oral are comparable to those found in Sagey (1986), butthe Place node Pharyngeal may dominate three features: [pharyngeal], [radical] andoptionally [dorsal]. The feature [pharyngeal] exists to make the distinction between classnodes (such as Oral and Pharyngeal) which 'specify featural subgroupings' (McCarthy1991:53) and terminal features which can code phonological distinctions. The feature[radical] refers to the tongue root as an active articulator. The feature [dorsal] functionsunder either the Oral node or the Pharyngeal node and indicates active articulation of thetongue body. Based on this feature geometry, McCarthy's representation of Semitic post-velars is thus:(4) Semitic gutturals, emphatics, and /q/: McCarthy 199118Guttural UvularsPhar oGlottalsPhar[pharyngeal]PharyngealsPhar[radical] [pharyngeal][dorsal] [pharyngeal]Coronal EmphaticsA[coronal] [dorsal] [pharyngeal]Oral o^o Phar[dorsal]^[pharyngeal]The feature [radical] which appears on /1, h/ represents the activity of the tongueroot in articulating pharyngeals. The combination [dorsal] [pharyngeal] dominated by thePharyngeal Place Node on /x, is/ indicates activity of the dorsum in the pharynx. Thelaryngeals /2, h/ are articulator-less, but not Placeless, being represented with aPharyngeal Place node. Gutturals all have primary articulation in the pharyngeal cavity,with the emphatics and the uvular stop /q/ (which is not a guttural in ContemporaryStandard Arabic) considered to be complex segments since they have an additional Placespecification under the Oral node. With respect to the identification of primary asopposed to secondary articulation, McCarthy proposes that phonological rules can specifywhich, if any, place or articulator features are primary or secondary. As an alternativeMcCarthy suggests that any segment with only an Oral place has a primary Oralarticulator and any segment with only a Pharyngeal place has a primary Pharyngealarticulator. If so, then presumably OraVPharyngeal segments will be complex unlessotherwise stipulated.The division of the traditional Place node into Oral and Pharyngeal places (withthe features dominated by those nodes representing articulators) formalizes some aspectsof the traditional phonetic notions of articulator and place of articulation as primitives inthe description of segments. Gorecka (1989) represents an attempt to justify this divisionphonologically across all places of articulation.The use of two nodes (Dorsal and Pharyngeal) in (4) to characterize uvulars isfound in Czaykowska-Higgins (1987), Cole (1987), Besse11 and Remnant (1989), Besse11(1990), Remnant (1990). From a cross-linguistic point of view, Elorrieta (1991) arguesthat uvulars are of two types: those that are purely dorsal and may be characterized byvalues for [high] and [back] as opposed to those which are dorsal-pharyngeal and maybear not only features for [high] and [back] but also Tongue Root and its dependent[RTR].A further contribution to feature geometry research is Gorecka's (1989)dissertation. Gorecka defends and formalizes a view of articulation that defines segmentsaccording to their site (i.e. the passive articulator or place of articulation) and articulator.A segment then, is represented by a tree with the traditional root node, but also with aphonological constituent (a Constriction Node) that dominates a Site and Articulatornode, both of which are directly relatable to the articulatory properties of that segment.The general model is thus:(5) Gorecka (1989)R otLaryngeal features^eatures(Constriction)^ConctionSite^Articulator19The possible values for Site are Labial, Anterior, Palatal, Velar and Pharyngeal.Site values do not dominate any features. Articulator values are Lower Lip (dominating[round]), Tongue Blade (dominating [lateral], [distributed]), Tongue Body (dominating[high], [low]), Tongue Root, Pharyngeal and Glottis. Gorecka's representations of theclass of Semitic gutturals is such that they all share a Pharyngeal Site, while havingdifferent Articulators. Gorecka's work is unusual in formalizing the Glottis as anarticulator.(6) Uvulars, Pharyngeals and Glottals (Gorecka 1989)Uvular20Con triction^Site^ArtillatorVelar^Tge BodyConstrictionSite^ArtilulatorPharyngeal^Tge RootS,hConstrictionSite^ArtilulatorPharyngeal^Tge Root?,hConstrictionSite^ArtilulatorPharyngeal^GlottisHerzallah (1990) develops a feature geometry for Palestinian Arabic post-velarsbased on Clements (1989, 1990) and McCarthy (1989). The primary distinction betweenthis and McCarthy's model has to do with the representation of secondary arcticulation.Xtsonorant]consonantal][continuant]SuprAprure^V-place[open]^[labial][coronal][dorsal][pharyngeal][labial][coronal][dorsal][pharyngeal][radical](7) Herzallah (1990)C- lace^Va1icIn Clements' model secondary articulation on consonants is represented by aVowel-place node. Thus, Herzallah's representation of coronal emphatics considers theirprimary place of articulation to be coronal, but with [dorsal] and [pharyngeal] (therepresentation for uvulars) under the Vowel-place node denoting secondary uvulararticulation. The Palestinian pharyngeals and glottals have primary [pharyngeal]articulation under the Consonantal node, with /h, S/ involving a radical articulator that isabsent for /?, h/. Uvulars are complex [dorsal] [pharyngeal] articulations. Theserepresentations parallel McCarthy's (1991) in that the guttural class is comprised ofsegments without secondary articulation per se. Herzallah's representation of /a/ formallycharacterizes it as the vocalic version of /?, h/. SL in this diagram refers to theSupralaryngeal node; C-place refers to Consonant Place.21(8) Herzallah (1990): Palestinian ArabicEmphatic CILC-place[corona']V- ace[dorsal] [pharyngeal]Uvulars1_,C- ace[dorsal][pharyngeal]PharyngealsILC- lace[pharyngeal][ralical]Glottals^/a/SL SLIC-Jace^V-placeI I[pharyngeal]^[pharyngeal]The claim that /a/ is the vocalic version of /?, h/ is refuted by E. Pulleyblank(1992), who argues for a pharyngeal glide [a] as the non-vocalic counterpart of the lowvowel /a/. Pursuing this hypothesis, Pulleyblank suggests that Standard Arabic /q/ isdistinguished from the guttural class by having [a] as a secondary glide articulationprovided by the radical articulator. Uvular gutturals are then complex segments withdorsal and radical primary articulations. The pharyngeals /h, 1/ are simply obstruentversions of the glide [A]. Under this analysis there is an intimate relationship betweenvocalic [a], glide [A] and fricative [h, 1] rather than [a] and [2, h] as glides.Finally, a quite different proposal for post-velars is made by Halle (1989), whosuggests a node Laryngeal, dominating two articulator nodes, Tongue Root and Glottis.The Tongue Root node dominates two features, [advanced tongue root] and [constrictedpharynx]. [Advanced tongue root] is to accommodate African ATR harmonies,22TongueRoot[ATR]^[CP][constricted pharynx] reflects retraction of the tongue root towards the rear wall of thepharynx and is used for Arabic uvulars and pharyngeals. The class of Semitic gutturals isthus accessed by reference to the Laryngeal node.(9) Halle (1989, 1992)23SupralaryngealSoft^PlacePalateLabialCoronalLaryngealGkitis[stiff vc]DorsalMcCarthy (1991) argues against the grouping of pharyngeal features under theLaryngeal node on the basis of Obligatory Contour Principle effects which reference thePlace node and include pharyngeal articulations but not laryngeal ones. A secondargument in favour of the fourth node grouping in some manner with the three traditionalarticulator nodes comes from the complications with stating guttural lowering underHalle's assumptions: whereas Laryngeal features seem to spread without reference to oraffect on Place features, guttural features interact with the height specifications oftargetted vowels.2.3.2 Fourth node in other languagesThe use of the fourth node is not limited to Semitic and ATR systems. Doak(1989) proposes a node Pharyngeal dominating a feature [retracted tongue root] toaccount for Coeur d'Alene vowel harmonies. In her 1992 paper this feature is abandonedand only the node Pharyngeal is used. Bessell and Remnant (1989) and Bessell (1990)Dorsal Tongue Root([epiglottis])1 Tongue Root1^Coronal[+epiglottis]^Dorsaluse a fourth node Tongue Root for Coeur d'Alene; Remnant (1990) proposes a feature[epiglottis] under a fourth node Tongue Root to characterize the effects of Lillooetpharyngeals. In none of these cases is there evidence for glottals being characterisedunder the fourth node, and therefore none of the analyses mentioned attempt to includethem there.(10) Remnant (1990): Lillooet uvulars, phaiyngeals and /z/Uvulars^Pharyngeals^/z/Place o Place Place24Tongue Root([epiglottis])Shaw (1991b) uses a fourth node Pharyngeal to capture alternations betweenglottals and uvulars in Nisgha, a Tsimshianic language spoken in the Nass River valley ofBritish Columbia (Tarpent 1983, 1987, Shaw 1987). Nisgha lacks pharyngeal resonantsof the sort found in Interior Salish, but provides evidence for the characterisation ofglottals and uvulars by a fourth node. /?/ in this analysis is distinct from /q7 by bearing aLaryngeal Node that does not dominate the feature [+glottalized]. Structurally, /ca can beviewed as a glottalized version of /2/. Also of note in Shaw's analysis is therepresentation of PI as [-continuant], on a par with the other stops in the language, butcontrary to assumptions in generative phonology that glottals do not bear continuancyvalues (Chomsky and Halle 1965, McCarthy 1988, Lombardi 1990, Padgett 1991).(11) Shaw (1991b): Nisgha uvulars and glottals 25/?/^/11/^/q/[-son] [-s n] [-son] [-son]L R]^[-cont] [LP1 0[PHAR][-cont]^[L R]^[-cant]P1 0I^P1 7 [+gllot] P1 7[PHAR]^[PAAR]^[P AR]Goad (1989, 1990, 1991) uses a fourth node Pharyngeal dominating a feature[retracted tongue root] with a separate feature [advanced tongue root] under a Vowelplace node. Goad represents co-occurrence restrictions between the features [low] and[atr] directly in the feature geometry. She argues that this type of geometry is necessaryto account for so-called 'Flattening' processes in the Athabaskan language Chilcotin(Cook 1983, 1987).(12) Goad (1991)PlaceLabialCoronalDorsalPharyngealVohi hlow/atr2.3.3. Fourth node for secondary articulationsThe fourth node is also used to capture the notion of tongue root retraction as asecondary articulation in Arabic emphatics (Herzallah 1990, McCarthy 1991), by Besselland Remnant (1989), Bessell (1990) and Remnant (1990) to characterize Coeur d'Alene/r, r'/, and Lillooet /z, z'/. Doak (1989, 1992) also uses the fourth node for Coeur d'Alene/r, r'/.2.4 ConclusionsFrom this survey it can be seen that the fourth node has had a short and somewhatturbulent history. The precise relationship between the fourth node in African ATRsystems as opposed to Semitic and Salish is not apparent and most authors have notattempted to deal with the issue. The inclusion of Semitic data in the debate has led toconsiderable changes in feature geometry based primarily on the patterning of glottals inSemitic. Shaw's (1991b) analysis of Nisgha compounds the evidence that glottals canpattern as if Pharyngeal in place even in an inventory without /h, T/. Furthermore, acrucial question is raised by the extension of the fourth node to characterise Salish andSemitic pharyngeals. Namely, are the segments we are dealing with phoneticallycomparable? Are the Salish segments transcribed /q, x,L, h/ uvulars and pharyngeals inthe same sense that the Semitic ones are? Chapters 4 and 5 consider these questionsdirectly.26Chapter Three: Systemic typology of post-velars3.0 IntroductionThis chapter examines the systemic distribution of uvulars, pharyngeals, glottalsand pharyngealized segments as they occur in the 693 inventories in Ruhlen (1975).1This survey establishes the broad distributional properties of post-velars from a cross-linguistic perspective. Section 3.1 examines the distribution of uvulars and section 3.2considers pharyngeals and pharyngealized segments. In general uvulars are notdependent on the presence of pharyngeals or glottals in an inventory, but inventories withpharyngeals are highly likely to have uvulars and glottals. Section 3.3 considers thedistribution of f2, h/ in some detail since their status as stop and fricative respectively ischallenged in the generative tradition. The presence of glottals alone does not imply thepresence of uvulars or pharyngeals. Inventory evidence also points to /?/ as a voicelessstop and /h/ as a voiceless fricative. Glottals are also highly unlikely to accept secondaryarticulations such as palatalization and rounding, which, while they have clear Placepreferences, can occur on segments at all places of articulation. Furthermore, while thepresence of ejectives or aspirates in an inventory is likely to co-occur with /2/ or /h/respectively, the occurrence of /2, h/ does not necessarily imply the presence of /C', Ch/.A full discussion of glottal representation is deferred to Chapter 7.Before embarking on this survey, I note that there are several unavoidableshortcomings of this type of gross systemic work. One is its reliance on existinganalyses. Fieldworkers are neither phonetically nor phonemically infallible, obviously.Of particular concern with respect to post-velars is that the transcription of glottalfricatives can be problematic. It can be difficult to distinguish between [x, x, h, II],especially if they are lightly articulated. For example, Maddieson (1984) considers /h/ soproblematic that he does not include it in his discussion of fricatives. Referring to Pike1I have used Ruhlen (1975) as opposed to Maddieson (1984) for the simple reason that there are 376 moreinventories in Ruhlen.27(1943) and Merlingen (1977) he considers what is transcribed as /h/ to be variable inplace of articulation and therefore difficult to assess in terms of place of articulationcategories (see section 4.2.9). The distinction between velar and uvular articulation canalso present transcriptional difficulties. A particularly acute problem in the case of 1?, h/is the decision to accord them phonemic rather than phonetic status. It is well known that/2, h/ are very common as epenthetic consonants, filling onset and sometimes codapositions. Unfortunately, not all analyses are clear with respect to the status of glottalswithin the total phonology of the language. Although I have checked Ruhlen's originalsources in some cases in order to verify the transcription and distribution of glottals, thesources themselves do not always provide sufficient information to determine whetherh/ are unquestionably phonemic or not. However, for the purposes of calculating thesystemic typological patterning of glottals, I consider /h/ to be a phonemic glottalfricative and IV a phonemic glottal stop. As a consequence of these shortcomings,typological work of this sort needs to be balanced by close investigation of individuallanguages. It is my purpose here simply to document rhe general distributional propertiesof post-velars, without making strong claims about patterning based on overtphonological evidence.3.1 UvularsUvulars occur in 146/693 languages in Ruhlen (1975). This amounts to 21% ofthe total number of languages surveyed. Velars are present in all 146 of these languages(100%); pharyngeals are present in 41(28%); glottals are present in 129 (88%). Thesefigures reflect the almost universal occurrence of velars, the scarcity of pharyngeals andthe relatively high occurrence of glottals (see section 3.2 and 3.3 below). However, giventhat pharyngeals occur in only 7% of Ruhlen's sample, their co-occurrence with uvulars isfour times their average distribution throughout the database.28The distribution of rounding as a secondary articulation points to a correlationbetween velars and uvulars. Rounding tends to be associated with Dorsal consonants. Of41 languages with rounded uvulars, 40 have rounded velars (98%), 12 have roundedCoronals ((29%) and one has a rounded labial (2%).There are 6 languages with rounded velars but no rounded uvulars (Buang, Coos,Diegueno, Eyak, Hopi and Tsimshian).Table 3.1: Distribution of uvularsIi Number PercentL's with uvulars 146/693 21%K also 146/146 100%C also 41/146 28%2 also 128/146 88%3.2 PharyngealsPharyngeals occur in only 48/693 (7%) of the languages sampled by Ruhlen(1975).2 Of the 48 languages with pharyngeals, 39 have both lb. 11(81%); 3 havevoiceless /h/ only (6%) and 6 have /1/ only (13%). 41/48 languages with pharyngealshave uvulars as well (85%); 45/48 also have laryngeals (94%). From these figures it canbe seen that there is a high co-occurrence of uvulars with pharyngeals (85% as comparedwith 21% of the entire database). The co-occurrence of laryngeals with pharyngeals islikewise higher than the general occurrence of glottals in the database (94% as opposed to75%), but nowhere near the same extent as the co-occurrence of pharyngeals withuvulars.292Pharyngeals occur in 4% of Maddieson's (1984) sample.Table 3.2: Distribution of pharyngeals with otherpost-velarsII Number I Percent^IL's with pharyngeals 48/693 7%thi and n/ 39/48 81%/h/ only 3/48 6%ni only 6/48 13%Q also 41/48 85%? also 45/48 94%There are some cases where the appearance of a single pharyngeal can be viewedas filling in holes in the uvular inventory to make it symmetrical with either the velarinventory (Koryak) or the fricative inventory as a whole (Achumawi).(1) Maverick pharyngeals as structural uvularsKoryak (Paleosibetian)P^t^6^k^q^2V Y rm^n^yi^01^AAchumawi (Hokan)P^t^ts^k^q^?s^5^x h^hm n1CAn intriguing case is Ngemba, where it looks as if the voiced pharyngeal may bethe voiced fricative counterpart to N.30(2) Ngemba (Niger-Kordofanian)t^k^2b^d^gf^s fV^Z 3 y^Sm^n ji g1, rSecondary articulations on pharyngealsRounding and glottalization are the only attested secondary articulations onpharyngeals, and both are exclusive to Interior Salish in Ruhlen's database, whichincludes 2 of the seven Interior Salish languages. Pharyngeals and glottalized resonantsare attested in all seven of the Interior Salish languages, so the appearance of /S', T'Iv/ isexpected, given that pharyngeals in these languages are phonologically [+sonorant](section 6.2.3). The appearance of rounded pharyngeals in Interior Salish is matched byrounded velars and uvulars. The analysis of Agul 'deep' pharyngeals may include alaryngeal feature (see sections 4.3.2.2 and 4.5) as may the Nootka and Haida ones.Since pharyngeals are central to this dissertation, Table 3.3 lists all of thelanguages in Ruhlen (1975) with a pharyngeal and whatever other post-velars there are inthe inventory. Ruhlen (1975) uses square brackets [Ito indicate the phonetic presence ofa sound where presumably its phonemic status is questionable. The figure under eachlanguage group indicates the number of languages in that group which contain apharyngeal. For example, Afro-Asiatic (11/29) indicates that of the 29 Afro-Asiaticlanguages in Ruhlen's database, 11 contain pharyngeals.31Table 3.3: Distribution of pharyngeal fricatives: (Ruhlen 1975)LanguagegroupLanguage Pharyngeals Uvulars Glot-talsC', CT etc.Afro-Asiatic(11/29)Shilha h,T none [h] ti,d1,0,sT,zf,nl,lr,rTTamazight h,T clw,Xw,gw ?,h tS,d,si,zi,ni,11,r1Bilin h,1 cbqw ?,h t', k','é'Somali h,1 G 2,h cf1raqw h,T ci,(4W ?,h [6, cf]EgyptianArabich,T cl,X,ff 2,h ts,dc,sc,zcIraqi Arabic h,T q,x,y 2,h tS,sl,e,fC,zi,niC,11, [pC,bC]MoroccanArabich,1 (1,X,ff 2,h tC,c1S,s,cl,[bC,zT,rnT,1C]SyrianArabich,T cl,X,Is 2,h bT,tS,c1S,sT,zT,nf,1C, m1Tigre h,1 none ? p',t',k',s','é'Geez h,T none 2,h pt,t1,1e,dt,s'Niger-Kordofanian(2/51)Ewe T none none,Ngemba T none ?Nilo-Saharan(1/25)Tama h none h 6, ccIndo-European(2/73)Tajik Persian h cl,X,g noneKurdish h,T cl,X,ff 2,h lul, [s19Caucasian(23/37)Andi h,T qh,q,,qhw,cfw 2,h t',ts',61,1c1, {X]Avar h,T q, q' ,q'w, x,Xw, If2,h f,ts',61,k',X'32Axvax ti,f cl,q' 2,h pl,t1,ts',6",k',X'Bagvali [ti,S] h^,q ,c1 ?,h e,c',6',1c1, s',f'Bezhita [ti,C] qh, q, , X, g 2,h pf,e,ts',6',k',X'Botlix [11,C] q, q' ?,h tI,ts',,k',X'Chamalal [h],1 q' 2,h f,ts',1c1,X1,f',[x]Dido ti,T q, cf, X, IS ?,h p',e,ts',6',1e,XIGinux h,S q, q', qw,X, Xvv,g, NW7,h p',f,ts',6',k',X 'Karata ti,S q, q' 2,h e,ts',6',k',X'Tindi 11,C h^,q , q 2,h ti,ts',,k',X'Xvarshi h,C q, qw, q', q'w,X, g?,h p',t',61,k',X1Dargwa h,f qh , cf , G ?,h p',e,ts',6',k'Lak 11,1 q, qw, q', x 2,h p',e,ts',61,k'Agul h,1 qh, q', qw, q'w ?,h pe,e,ts',61,k'Archi ti,S h^,q , q , X, g ?,h p',f,ts',,k',X'Budux ti,T q, q', x, g ?,h p',e,tsk'Kryts ti,S qh, q', G ?,h p',e,ts',k'Xinalug h,C CI, q', x , II ?,h p',e,ts',61,1c1Bats h,S q, qX, x, IS 2,h p',e,ts,k'Chechen ti,f q, qX, X, is ?,h p',e,ts',k'p',e,ts',6',k'p',V,ts',1e,sC,flIngush h,S q', qx, X, IS 2,hE. Circassian ti,[S] q, qw, x, xw, is,isw?,hAltaic (2/39) Tatar r q, x, IS, N ?Buryat h none nonePa1eo-siberian (1/8) _Koryak r q, q: 233Austro-Tai(1/67)Atayal h q ?Salish (2/10) Columbian 1, Sw, 5', 1'w,h, hwq, qw, q', q'w,X, Xw?,h p'41c1,ts',X',1',m ' ,n ' 91 ' ,r ' ,y ' ,WIOkanagan 1, Cw, 5', S'w q, qw, q', q'w,X, Xw?,h p',f,k',ts',X',1',m',n1,1',e,y',WIWakashan Nootka(1/2)h,1 q, qw, q', x, xw 2,h p',f,le,ts',6',Hokan (1/19) Achumawi h q 2,hGe-Pano-Carib (1/24) _Capanahua h none ?3.2.1 Pharyngealized consonantsPharyngealized consonants occur in 7/693 (1%) languages in Ruhlen (1975).Four of these are Arabic, two are Caucasian and one is a Berber language. As can beseen from (3), in all cases except Shilha, uvulars are present; in all cases except Ubyxpharyngeals are present; in all cases except Shilha, glottals are present.(3) Post-velar inventories in languages with pharyngealized consonantsEgyptian Arabic: AT, d1, sf, zC , q, x, Is , h, 1,? , h/Iraqi Arabic: / t1, sC, 15T, q, h, 1, h, 2/Moroccan Arabic: AT, dT, s1, IS, q, x, u , h, 1, 2, h/Syrian Arabic: /1§, tS, (IT, s1, 414 , nC , li , q, x, is , h, 1, ? , h/Circassian: 15S, 3T, q', q'w, qx, qxw, X, xw, 15, 15W, h, [1], 2 , 2w, h/Ubyx: 101, p'S ,b5, fC, m5, qh, qhw, q', X, xw, h/Shilha: AT, dC, kC, s5, z5 ,l5 , ri, h, 1, [h]/In those Interior Salish languages for which retracted coronals are derived orunderlying3, pharyngeals, uvulars and glottals are present in the inventory. Chilcotin, an3The phonology of Interior Salish retraction is considered in Chapter 6.34Athabaskan language which neighbours Lillooet and from which it may have borrowedits retraction phenomena, has retracted coronals, uvulars and glottals (Cook 1983, 1987).3.2.2 Pharyngealized vowelsPharyngealized vowels are not recorded in any language in Ruhlen (1975). Hedoes notate creaky vowels, which in some cases are otherwise described aspharyngealized. An example in Ruhlen is Archi (Caucasian), which has pharyngealized/e, m/ and a pharyngealized rounded /a/ vowel, as well as uvulars, pharyngeals andglottals. Dido, also Caucasian, has plain and pharyngealized /i, e, a, o, u/ as well asuvulars, pharyngeals and glottals. From this it would appear that pharyngealized vowelsdo not appear in inventories without primary pharyngeals, uvulars and glottals.Of the Khoisan languages, Ruhlen lists !Kung with 'pressed' vowels /x, o/ withpharyngeal friction. In !X66 the pharyngealized vowels are /a,o,u/ (Traill 1985). !X(56has two 'uvular-pharyngeal' consonants transcribed by Traill as /x, q/. See section 4.3.4for further discussion of Khoisan.3.3 GlottalsA glottal of some sort occurs in 520/693 of the languages in Ruhlen (1975). Thisamounts to 75% of all the languages in his survey. The breakdown between 121 and /h/ isas follows: /2/ occurs in 337/693 languages (49%); /h/ occurs in 442/693 (64%) and istherefore more common that IV; 264/693 (38%) of the languages in Ruhlen have both 12,h/; 78/693 (11%) have /2/ without /h/; 178/693 (27%) have /h/ without /?/. Theoccurrence of glottals with pharyngeals and uvulars respectively reflects the generaldistribution of these segments in the database as a whole, and shows that once you have apharyngeal or uvular the liklihood of a glottal in the inventory is very high.35Table 3.4: Distribution of glottals4Il No. of Ls 1 Percent12/ 337/693 49%/h/ 442/693 64%Pi or /h/ 520/693 75%12/ and /h/ 264/693 38%/2/ only 78/693 11%/h/ only 178/693 27%2 and T 45/520 8.6%? and Q 129/520 25%The fricative /h/, along with coronal Is/, is the most commonly found fricative ininventories. Maddieson (1984) reports that 63% of his sample contains somethingtranscribed as /h/. This is very close to the figure (64%) derived from Ruhlen's sample.The presence of /h/ does not necessarily imply /2/ (178 cases in Ruhlen, 27% of alllanguages, 34% of all languages with a glottal). It might be argued that the presence of/h/ without /2/ represents an asymmetry since labial, coronal and dorsal fricatives do notusually appear without a homorganic stop counterpart. It is suggested in Chapter 7 that iflaryngeals require only the root value [consonantal] or [-sonorant] then the presence ofany obstruent provides the features [consonantal] and [-sonorant], which is all that isneeded for /?/ if [-continuant] is the unmarked value for continuancy. /h/ then requiresthe presence of a fricative to provide the inventory with [+continuant]. As it happens, /h/almost never appears in an inventory without /s/ or some other fricative.While the vast majority of languages have fricatives at some place of articulation,36/693 (5%) do not. Ruhlen (1975:141-2) notes 'Except in Oceania, almost all of theworld's languages have one kind of fricative or another. Only 36 of the 693 languages inour sample lack fricatives altogether. Of these 36 languages, one is found in Africa, three4These calculations collapse /fi/ with /h/. I have counted 5 cases of /fi/ in Ruhlen's database. Instances of[h] or [7] are not included since this notation indicates some question about the phonemic status of thesegments.36in South America, and the remaining 32 in Oceania (22 in Australia, seven in NewGuinea, two in Bougainville, and one in the Gilbert Islands.'. Of interest here is that noneof the Australian languages has a glottal fricative, nor does any other language mentionedby Ruhlen as lacking fricatives altogether.This might lead one to think that /h/ never occurs without a fricative in theinventory. This is not completely true, since Ruhlen (1975) makes his calculationstreating laryngeal articulations as a separate class. There are four languages in Ruhlen'ssample which are recorded with an /h/ but no other phonemic fricative. Given the 442languages with /h/, these four exceptions amount to 1%. The consonantal inventories ofthe four exceptions are given in (4). Each language contains consonantal phonemes thatare phonetic continuants.(4) Occurrence of /h/ without a fricativeHawaiian: /p, k, 2, m, n, 1, h/Marshallese: /t, U, k, kw, b, hi, bw, m, mi, mw, n, g, gw, 1, lw,r, rw, rJ, h /Yagua: /p, t, k, ?, ts, m, n, r, h/Tairora: /p, t, k, ?, mp, '1t,^b, m, n, r, h/Of these exceptions, Bender (1971:450-451) remarks on the Marshalleseinventory, "The status of h—velarized (or perhaps pharyngealized) counterpart of y andw—is most tenuous, since it is the onset, transition, or coda one finds in the absence ofy,w, or another consonant, and is in this sense predictable. However, its use greatlysimplifies canonical forms, eliminating initial and final vowels and vowel clusters orgeminate vowels...'. This description points to /h/ as an epenthetic, possibly pharyngealconsonant in Marshallese. It may not be a laryngeal fricative. In the Hawaiian inventory,/11/ is the reflex of Proto-Polynesian */s/• Proto-Polynesian *Th/ has reduced to [0] inmost languages, including Hawaiian (Biggs 1971). I have not been able to determine37from the sources for Tairora and Yagua if the analysis of /h/ as phonemic is appropriateor not.It would appear then that there is a dependency between the presence of /h/ andthe presence of other fricatives, but this is difficult to prove conclusively given the highoccurrence of /s/ anyway. However, the distribution of /h/ is almost completely inaccordance with the hypothesis that its presence is made possible by the presence offricatives. The obvious question is: Is the distribution of /2/ likewise predicated upon theappearance of voiceless stops?It would appear so. In those (few) languages which lack a voiceless series of anysort there is no /2/ (or /11/ for that matter, as mentioned above).5(5) Yanyula (Australian)b^ci^d^di^4^gm n^nj 111Ngarndji (Australian)b^ddiclj^gm^n^ni1^li^1e^rIt is difficult to find many true test cases, since almost all languages have either plainvoiceless or voiceless aspirated stops. Either of these series would provide the features[+consonantal, -sonorant] for IV, but in inventories with Ch only (and no plain voicelessstops) we might expect /2/ to be /2h/. Chapter 7 remarks on the poor documentation of[2h], despite its occurrence. In line with the undertranscription of [2h], there is no /2h/ in51f the use of /b, d, g/ in such languages is meant to indicate unreleased or unaspirated stops withvariable/secondary voicing, then we do not predict the necessary absence of N. But if I'll appears in suchlanguages one would expect it to be unaspirated at least.38the inventories reviewed by Ruhlen. However, the source for Rawang (Morse 1963), oneof the inventories entered with only a voiceless aspirated stop series, notes that /7/ isunreleased in the same contexts as the other voiceless stops of the inventory. Morse(1963) analyzes word-initial [7] as epenthetic and says it is less fortis than its phonemicword-final counterpart. It would appear that this is a case where if the laryngealdistinction really is voiceless aspirated, then ill participates, as predicted. Three otherlanguages merit investigation to test the prediction that their /?/ should be Ph/ if (i) theanalysis of their stop series as voiceless aspirated is correct and (ii) /?/ is phonemic.These three languages are Motilon, Nengone and Tehran Persian. I note here that TajikPersian is not transcribed with phonemicFinally, there are cases of /?/ in inventories without a plain voiceless stop series,but with a voiceless aspirated series and either ejectives or implosive stops. Bothejectives and implosives would be a source of the feature [A-constricted glottis]./?/ is the most common stop after /p/, /t/ and /k/. It is more frequent in occurrencethan palatal and uvular stops.6 /2/ occurs in 342 of the 693 languages in Ruhlen (49%).All languages have stops, and the vast majority of languages have voiceless stops. Giventhe suggestion that every language with voiceless stops licenses /2/ and every languagewith continuants licenses /h/ one might expect glottals to turn up more often. So why arethey so much less frequent than /p,t,k/ or /s/ ? First of all, even if they are not analysed asphonemic, /?/ and /h/ are often phonologically relevant in languages precisely becausethey are so readily available for syllabification processes in supplying onsets, etc.English is a good example. /7/ is not presented as phonemic in anlayses of English but itis argued to provide an onset for vowel-initial syllables and many dialects have reductionof /t/ in particular to , though it can occur from every place of articulation (Harris6That is, assuming that alveo-palatal affricates are not better thought of as palatal stops, which may not bequite right. The occurrence of stops by place of articulation in Maddieson (1984) is bilabial 99.1%; dentalor alveolar 99.7%; velar 99.4%; palatal/palato-alveolar 18.6%; uvular 14.8%.391990). Malay (see chapter 7) is another example of a language without a phonemic /?/,but [2] nonetheless figures prominently in the phonology of the language.3.3.1 Stop and fricative?The assumption of non-generative inventory architecture is that /2/ is a voicelesslaryngeal stop and /h/ is a voiceless laryngeal fricative. This is really the defaultdescriptivist assumption, though it is not the most common generative assumption. Thestandard generative tradition argues that /?, h/ are glides (see chapter 7). Given thedivergence between descriptivist and generative assumptions, the issue bears someinvestigation from the point of view of systemic typology.Traditionally, inventories are structured with /?/ as part of the voiceless stopseries, /h/ in the voiceless fricative series, and both /2, h/ as a 'final' place of articulationin a continuum from the lips to the glottis. These assumptions are reflected in thepresentation of inventories in both Ruhlen (1975) and Maddieson (1984). 264 of the 693languages in Ruhlen structure /h/ as the fricative counterpart of ill, given the presence of/2/ (38% of the total number of languages). No inventory places /?, h/ with the glides/w, j/. Seri is a typical example.(6) Seri (Hokan, NW Mexico)p^t^k^kw ?sf x^xw hm^n^01If /2/ is present without /h/ (78 languages, 11%) it is always presented as the finalplace of articulation in the voiceless stop series, as in (7).40(7) Angataha (Indo-Pacific, SW New Guinea)p^t^k^?0However, some inventories present /h/ as a kind of 'gap-filler', in that it patternswherever there is a space for it in the voiceless fricative series (typically in the velar oruvular region) and usually if there is no /?/ for it to pair up with. This type ofarrangement is presented for more than 170 of the languages in Ruhlen (178 Ls have /h/without 121; 27%). Moru is an interesting example.(8) Morn (Nilo-Saharan)P^t^W^kb^dj^jwg6^cfS^sw^h^hwz^zwm^n 0r 1 rThere are also examples of /h/ as fricative counterpart to /4, gbi (Bini, Ngbandi). Thepoint here is simply that /h/ is considered part of the voiceless fricative series and oftenhas secondary articulations otherwise restricted to obstruents.Even in inventories with /21, 1W can still take secondary articulations which are notpresent on /7/ but are on velar or uvular articulations. The implication that /h/ patterns asif it were a velar or uvular fricative is of course made possible by the absence of suchsegments in an inventory. Rawang is a typical example of this sort of inventory. Itrestricts rounding and palatalization to dorsals (in this case velar stops and nasals), lacks avoiceless velar fricative series, has glottal stop and a series of h's with exactly thesecondary articulations otherwise restricted to velar place of articulation.41(9) Rawang (Sino-Tibetan, N. Burma)ph^th^6^kh khw^2b^d^j^g gws^5^h hwzm n^a ev1Similar patterns are found in 14 other inventories in Ruhlen (1975).Of course an inventory on the page of a book says nothing about the phonologicalevidence for proposing rounded This and /k/'s as fricative and stop counterparts of oneanother. It turns out that constraints on the content of syllable onsets is the dominantfactor in the analysis of /hw/. Thus, for example, C+w sequences in Chipaya are limitedto /kw, qw, ?w, hw/, and the syllable structure of the language is maximally (s)CCVCC(t)if we analyze the limited C+w sequences as unitary Cw. In Lao, Rawang and Siona onlysingle consonant onsets are allowed, providing we analyse Cw (and Ci) sequences asunitary. The one language which has both /2w/ and /hw/ is Yay, a Tai language spoken inN. Vietnam, which likewise restricts CC onsets to velars or glottals plus /w/. The twoYuman languages with /hw/ are Mohave and Kiliwa, and there is clear comparativeevidence that they are historically derived from voiceless velar fricatives. Thus, forexample, Mohave has 2ahwat 'red' where Maricopa has xwetam, Diegueno and Tipai havexwat 'blood'. Kiliwa has sah where Tipai has ?ax, Diegueno 2u2ax and so on.The relevance of these facts, whether invested in inventory arrangements orstatements of phonotactics is of course that /h/ and /2/ are understood to patternphonologically with fricatives and stops respectively. In more specific terms, /7/ patternswithin the class of voiceless stops and /h/ within the class of voiceless fricatives.423.3.2 Secondary articulations on glottalsOne very striking distributional property of n, h/ is that they tend not to takesecondary articulations which otherwise occur fairly freely with other places ofarticulation. Rounding as a secondary articulation provides the clearest evidence of thisconstraint.3.3.2.1 Rounding on glottalsRounded consonants (Cw) occur in 20% of Ruhlen's sample (136 languages). It israre to find rounding on segments at every place of articulation. In the Circassianlanguage Adyge consonants at all places of articulation are phonemically rounded,including /?/ (but not /h/).7 Instead of being evenly distributed across place ofarticulation, the preferred locus for labialization is dorsal consonants. 131 of the 136languages with Cw include rounded dorsals (96%) and 63% restrict rounding to dorsalsonly.8 The occurrence of rounding by place is tabled in (3.5). These calculations excludeinventories where rounded dorsal stops lack a homorganic fricative counterpart which/hw/ may be argued to take the place of (such as Rawang). In this table, 'P' stands for alabial consonant, 'T' for a coronal, 'K' for a dorsal, 'V for a pharyngeal and '?' for a glottal.437A very similar inventory is found in Kabardian (East Circassian). The only other language in Ruhlen'scollection to labialize consonants across place of articulation is Juat (pw, tw, kw), but it does not have anyglottals. This amounts to three languages which labialize across place of articulation, two of which areclosely related (2.2% of the 136 languages with Cw).8 If both velars and uvulars appear in an inventory, both are rounded, with three exceptions where onlyvelars are rounded: Buang, Hopi, Tsimshian.Table 3.5: Distribution of roundinOccurrence of plain segment inlanguages with CwOccurrence of Cw by Place ofArticulationSeg't I^No. of L's I^Percent Cw I^No. of L's I^PercentP 130/136 96% Pw 16/136 11.7%T 136/136 100% Tw 20/136 14%K 136/136 100% Kw 131/136 96%r 13/136 9.5% Tw 2/136 1.4%2 111/136 82% 2w 7/136 5%The resulting hierarchy of preference for rounding is: Dorsal > Coronal > Labial >Glotta1.9The place of pharyngeals in this hierarchy is a little more complicated to evaluategiven their restricted occurrence in general. Rounded pharyngeals are exclusive toInterior Salish. Ruhlen's database includes Moses-Columbian and Okanagan—these arethe 2/136 in Table 3.5. Given that there are only 13/136 Cw languages with pharyngealsat all, the presence of Tw represents 15% of the possibilities. This is obviously a higheroccurrence than the 7/111 possibilities for 2w (6%). Including pharyngeals, the hierarchyis: Dorsal > Coronal > Labial > Pharyngeal > Glottal.3.3.2.2 Prenasalization on glottalsSixty languages in Ruhlen have prenasalized segments (9%). The overwhelmingpreference is for prenasalization to co-occur with voiced stops (86% of prenasalizedsegments are restricted to the voiced stops of an inventory). In almost all casesconsonants at all available places of articulation are prenasalized; of course /2/ as avoiceless stop is not prenasalized, and /h/ as a fricative is not either. In all cases,9These hierarchies are based on raw figures only—the statistical significance of these claims variessomewhat.44prenasalized stops do not occur unless they have a plain counterpart: an unadorned stopmust exist before its modified counterpart can.However, there are 8 languages with prenasalized voiceless consonants. Three donot have /2/ so cannot speak to the possibility of prenasalized glottals (Malay, TemTein,Berta). Of the remaining five, four prohibit the prenasalization of /2/ (Wolio, MargiTairora, Amuzgo). It would appear then that even when voiceless stops can beprenasalized /?/ is not included.However, there is one exception to this. Adzera is transcribed with a prenasalizedglottal stop. Adzera prenasalizes every non-continuant non-sonorant consonant in itsinventory where pre-nasalization agrees with the place of articulation of the stop: /?/ turnsup with engma before it. If the constraint on prenasalization operates off a[+consonantal, -continuant] root node in Adzera, the correct results are obtained. Notethat /2/ must be [consonantal] and [-continuant] for it to fall into this class.(10) Adzera (Oceanic, NE New Guinea)P mP t^'it k pk 2^02b mb d ndts ntsdz ndzg Ogf s h111 nr03.3.2.3 Palatalization on glottals46/693 languages have palatalization (7%). Palatalization tends to favour thecoronal place of articulation, with 39/46 languages having palatalized coronals (85%).20/46 have palatalized velars (43%), 13/46 have palatalized labials (28%), 5/46 havepalatalized /h/ (11%). There are no cases of palatalized pharyngeals in Ruhlen (1975).Clearly palatalized glottals are disfavoured. The hierarchy then is: Coronals > Dorsals >45Labials > Glottals > Pharyngeals. In this table, 'C' stands for any consonant, 'P' for alabial, T' for a coronal, 'K' for a dorsal, 'V for a pharyngeal and '2' for a glottal.Table 3.6: Distribution of palatalizationI^Segment^II No. of Ls^Il Percent^ICi 46/693 7%Pi 13/46 28%Ti 39/46 85%Ki 20146 43%si 0 02.1 5/46 11%On closer insepection, the five cases of 2i (which are all in fact /hi/) aresuspicious.10 Lapp has Ci for every segment in its inventory, as does Vepsian. Thiswould argue for a syllable structure constraint. For Igbo, there is likely a syllablestructure constraint which better explains the distribution of palatalized segments.Dunstan (1969) argues for C1C2V as the canonical syllable structure, where C2 is limitedto /w, j/. Lakkia /hi, hw/ can be argued to pattern as velar fricatives, since it has /ki, kw/but no velar fricatives. This reduces the isolation of /h/ for palatalization to one case,Nenema.(11) Nenema (Austro-Tai, NW New Caledonia)PPhP wP hw^t t^ch k khmb mbw^nd ilj^Ogv^S^V^h Ili hwm rri mw rqw^n 11 .ri^u 01 rNenema has aspiration at all places of articulation (turning up as voicelessness on nasals),and rounding on labials only, except for this odd case of /h/. /h.j/ is likewise odd inbeing the only palatalized segment in the inventory. Nenema also has /w, j/. If /Ili/ and/hw/ are parallel to nasals then they can be regarded as the aspirated/devoiced version of10Flowever, Catford (1983) reports 2i in Abkhaz Adyghe.46/j/ and /w/ respectively, thus substantially reducing the idiosyncracies of this inventory:/hi/ is /j/ and /hw/ is /n/. This reduces cases of palatalized glottals to two languageswhere every segment in the inventory can take palatalization (Lapp and Vepsian).In summary, it is rare to find secondary articulations on glottals. There are 6relatively clear cases of a labialized glottal where phonotactic constraints argue for asingle segment analysis, one of prenasalization (glottals tend instead to be transparent),and three of palatalization where syllable structure constraints are relevant. Of 242languages with some sort of secondary articulation then, a maximum of 10 appear toinclude glottals in the class of segments which can take secondary articulation (4%).3.4 Aspiration and ejectionPhonetics has long made the distinction between /2, h/ as segments with alaryngeal place of articulation, as opposed to adjustments of the vocal folds to generatephonation types, such as voicing, aspiration and ejection. Catford (1988) is very clearabout distinguishing the glottis in its initiatory function from the glottis as a place ofarticulation. Ladefoged and Maddieson (1988) suggest that phonology should recognizethe glottis as a place of articulation separate from its initiatory function. The distributionof glottals in the traditional organization of inventories recognizes this distinction bystructuring 121 as a stop and /h/ as a fricative, although it is not always clear what theevidence might be for so doing. Here I consider the bald distributional facts concerningthe presence of f?, h/ on the one hand and /C', Ch/ on the other.47Table 3.7: Distribution of aspiration and ejectionSegment No. of L's Percent^Segment No. of L's Percent337/693 49% h 442/693 64%C' 117/693 17% Ch 148/693 21%? without C' 220/337 65% h without Ch 294/442 67%C' and ? 100/117 85% Ch and h 125/148 84%C' without ? 17/117 15% Ch without h 23/148 16%Aspirated consonants occur in 148 of 693 languages (21%). 125 of theselanguages have /h/ also (85%). Ejective consonants occur in 117 of 693 languages(17%). 100 of these languages have /?/ also (84%). One might consider this as evidencethat given the presence of /C'/, the liklihood of /2/ being phonemic is higher than usual;the same is true for /Ch/.11 The distribution of glottals in general confirms this, since rilappears 49% of the time, /h/ 64% of the time. However, it is also possible(approximately 15% of the time) to get aspirated or ejective consonants without thepresence of /2/ or /h/, respectively.Does the presence of glottal segments imply glottalized and aspirated segments?Of the 337 languages with /2/, 100 have C' also (34%). Of the 442 languages with /h/,125 have Ch also (35%). Put the other way round, /?/ occurs without C' 65% of the time,and /h/ occurs without Ch 67% of the time. Thus, it is more likely for a language not tohave both /C'/ and /V, /Ch/ and /h/ than to have both of them. However, this must becontrasted with the fact that C' occurs in 17% of all languages in Ruhlen, Ch occurs 21%of the time. The co-occurrence of C' with /?/ is thus double that of the distribution of /2/throughout the database, and the co-occurrence of Ch with /h/ is more than half again.Furthermore, the presence of /C', Ch/ implies the presence of a plain, voicelesscounterpart almost without exception. In this respect, /C', Ch/ have a clear Place11The 148 languages with Ch include 60 in which there is not a three-way distinction between voiceless C,voiced C and aspirated C. As a consequence, aspiration in these languages may well be a phoneticaccompaniment to lack of voicing. The individual phonologies must be looked at to determine this.However, abstracting away from these cases, there remain 88 languages with voiceless unaspirated C,voiceless aspirated C and voiced C in contrast. Of these, 78 have /h/ also (89%). 47 have /2/ also (53%).48dependency. While there are preferences for the affiliation of ejection with velar orcoronal place (Maddieson 1984), stops at all places of articulation can be ejective oraspirated.3.5 ConclusionsFrom a systemic point of view the following statements can be made about thedistribution of post-velars. First, given pharyngeals in an inventory, uvulars are fourtimes more likely to be present than their distribution throughout the database wouldindicate; glottals are 1.3 times as likely to be present. The connection betweenpharyngeals and uvulars is thus stronger than that between pharyngeals and glottals.Second, given uvulars in an inventory, pharyngeals are four times more likely to bepresent than their general distribution would indicate; glottals are 1.2 times more likely tooccur. Again, the connection between uvulars and pharyngeals is stronger than thatbetween uvulars and glottals. Third, given the presence of glottals in an inventory, theoccurrence of uvulars is 1.2 times that of their usual distribution. The same figure appliesfor the likelihood of pharyngeals given glottals. While pharyngeals and uvulars stronglyimply one another and glottals are 20-30% more likely to occur with uvulars andpharyngeals than their general distribution would indicate, there is a considerabledifference in the strength of these implications.49Chapter Four: Phonetic investigations into post-velar articulation4.0 IntroductionThis chapter develops a phonetic typology of post-velar articulation based onwhat is known about (i) the physiology of the vocal tract involved in post-velararticulation, (ii) language independent descriptions of post-velars, (iii) descriptions ofpost-velar articulation in Semitic, Caucasian and Interior Salish and (iv) the theoreticaland attested acoustic consequences of post-velar articulation. These issues are consideredin Sections 4.1 to 4.4 respectively.In brief, the phonetic facts discussed provide evidence for a distinction betweenvelar and uvular places of articulation with uvulars sharing properties with both velarsand pharyngeals as a consequence of their position at the intersection of the oral cavitywith the pharyngeal cavity. Pharyngeals fall into two articulatory classes: those madewithout consistent laryngeal involvement and with the option of constriction relativelyhigh in the pharynx as opposed to those made with a laryngeal component andconstriction very low in the pharynx. Both types of pharyngeal articulation can contrastwith fl,h/. Finally, Semitic, Caucasian and Interior Salish present 'pharyngealized'segments. The phonetics (and phonology) of these segments is discouragingly unclear,though best understood and documented in Arabic studies.4.1 The anatomy of post-velarsIn order to assess and discuss the general articulation of post-velars, as well aslanguage-specific descriptions of them, it is necessary to have some understanding of thevocal tract anatomy involved in their production. While much of this information istrivial in the sense that it can be found in any anatomy (and some phonetic) texts, itremains the case that the details of post-velar articulation are poorly understood and littlediscussed in the standard phonological literature. In particular, the relationship between50tongue root activity and pharyngeal constriction is central to deciphering the barrage ofvariant phonetic detail in descriptions of pharyngeal articulation. The extent of thisvariation is discussed in section 4.3.This section divides the anatomy of post-velars in terms of the relevant majorcavities (4.1.1), places of articulation (4.1.2) and articulators (4.1.3).4.1.1 The major cavitiesFor the purposes of describing the articulation of speech sounds, the human vocaltract can conveniently and naturally be divided into three major cavities: the oral cavity(from the lips to the uvula, roughly speaking), the nasal cavity and the pharyngeal cavity.The pharyngeal cavity is usually divided into three parts, the nasopharynx, oropharynxand laryngo-pharynx (Daniloff 1973, Catford 1977,1988). The nasopharynx is the areaabove the velum, where the very upper reaches of the pharyngeal wall intrude into thenasal cavity. The oropharynx extends from just behind the mouth down to the hyoidbone (Daniloff 1973) or just above the larynx (Catford 1988). This leaves thelaryngopharynx, which is usually defined as terminating with the laryngeal andesophageal openings and rising to the level of the hyoid bone. The larynx itselfconstitutes both a place of articulation (/2,h/) and a source of excitation for many speechsounds but it is not, naturally enough, considered to be a cavity per se.4.1.2 Places of articulationWithin the oral and pharyngeal cavities, and including the larynx this time, theInternational Phonetic Association in its Alphabet (revised to 1989) labels eleven primaryplaces of articulation: bilabial, labiodental, dental, alveolar, postalveolar, retroflex,palatal, velar, uvular, pharyngeal and glottal. It does not chart, but provides symbols forthree epiglottal segments: a voiced and a voiceless fricative C, H and a plosive ? . Theselatter segments and their place among post-velars are discussed more fully in sections514.2.6-7. The eleven IPA divisions are intended to represent phonologically contrastivesites of articulation, and the symbols contained within the chart are intended to besufficient to represent 'all the possible sounds of the world's languages' (InternationalPhonetic Association (1989)). Various combinations of place of articulation complete theinventory of possible segments.4.1.3 ArticulatorsThe active articulators of the human speech system are usually considered to bethe lips, the tongue, and the velum. However, the muscles in the pharyngeal walls whichplay a role in swallowing can function to constrict and expand the pharyngeal cavity forthe purposes of speech. The larynx of course contains musculature which adjusts thevocal folds for the articulation of glottal segments as well as phonatory gestures such asvoicing. In this respect, both the pharynx and the larynx are potential places ofarticulation and articulators.This section deals with the tongue, pharynx and larynx musculature as each playsa role in post-velar articulationl.4.1.3.1 The tongueWithin the (phonetic) tradition adopted by phonology, the tongue is divided intoseveral zones (Ladefoged 1982, Catford 1988). The tip (apex) is the most anterior part ofthe tongue, followed by the blade (lamina), the portion of the tongue which lies under thealveolar ridge when the tongue is at rest2. The rest of the tongue is divided into the body(dorsum) and the root (radix). The dorsum in turn is usually divided into anterior andposterior sections, or front and back. The front of the tongue, therefore, is behind the apexiLabial activity is not directly related to post-velar articulation, but the contribution of lip gestures toemphasis is remarked on in some descriptions of Semitic emphatics (Mitchel 1956, McCarus and Yacoub1962, Blanc 1953, Maamouri 1967).2Keating (1991) defines the blade of the tongue as the tip plus the first 2-3 cm beyond the tip. The exactlength of the blade is not relevant for the discussion here.52and blade, and normally lies beneath the hard palate, while the back or posterodorsumarticulates with least effort in the velar and uvular zones. The root is the most posteriorportion of the tongue, forming the anterior wall of the pharynx. It is the least mobile partof the tongue, having some direct attachments to surrounding structure (Daniloff 1973)Crucially, tongue muscles are connected to the epiglottis, the hyoid bone, the jaw, partsof the soft palate and so on. Thus, tongue movement can affect the dimensions of boththe oral and pharyngeal cavities either discretely or simultaneously.A consideration of the basic musculature of the tongue reveals the complexinteraction of tongue movement and general vocal tract configuration. Useful treatmentsof this topic can be found in Perkell (1971), Laver (1980), Borden and Harris (1984). Ireview the major issues here, since the terminology is useful and an understanding ofmuscle interaction is crucial to an accurate description of articulation in general.Tongue musculatureThe major intrinsic (i.e., with no external attachment to another structure) tonguemuscles are those that flatten the tongue (vertical muscle), those that narrow and elongatethe tongue (transverse lingual muscle), those that curl the tip and edges of the tongue andpossibly shorten it (superior longitudinal muscle) and those that pull the tongue tip downor shorten the tongue (inferior longitudinal). The latter muscle has its point of origin inthe tongue root. Basically the longitudinal muscles bunch the tongue from front to backwhen contracted.The major extrinsic (i.e., with an external attachment) tongue muscles are thegenioglossus, the styloglossus, the hyoglossus and palatoglossus muscles.The genioglossus is the largest tongue muscle. It is described by Laver (1980:53)as 'the big, fan-shaped vertical muscle that makes up the bulk of the body of the tongue,running from the inner surface of the jaw, at the chin, backwards to the hyoid bone andupwards to the dorsum of the tongue. Its action pulls the body of the tongue forward,53when the jaw is in a fixed position'. Daniloff (1973) reports that it can also pull thetongue downward into the jaw, making the tongue concave.The styloglossus is externally attached to the styloid process of the temporal bonein the skull, and runs down to insert into the sides of the tongue where it spreads outalong the tongue almost as far as the tip. Contracting the styloglossus lifts the tongueupwards and backwards, and may also lift the edges of the tongue.The hyoglossus, as its name indicates, is externally attached to the hyoid bone. Itthen runs upwards and enters the tissue at the tongue root and mixes with thepalatoglossus muscle. The hyoglossus acts to lower and retract the body of the tongue.The palatoglossus muscle originates in the soft palate and runs down the back andsides of the mouth and into the sides of the tongue, forming what are commonly referredto as the front faucal pillars. This muscle then blends in with the styloglossus andhyoglossus muscles. Contracting the palatoglossus either raises the tongue body orlowers the velum. In general, the styloglossus and palatoglossus muscles lift the tongueupwards and backwards, while the hyoglossus and genioglossus retract and lower thetongue.54The basic tongue muscles and their external connections are diagrammed inFigure 4.1, taken from Laver (1980:52).Schematic diagram of the action andi . Styloid processz. Styloglossus muscle3. Palatoglossus muscle4. Superior longitudinal muscle5. Inferior longitudinal muscle^i6. Transverse lingual muscle iFigure 4.1: Tongue musculature (Laver 1980:52)4.1.3.2 The pharynxAlthough the pharynx is not traditionally considered an articulator, it does possessa musculature which can assist in the articulation of sounds that rely on altering thedimensions of the pharyngeal cavity.In general, the oropharynx can be viewed as composed of an inner and an outerlayer of muscles. The outer layer of muscles includes the superior, middle and inferiorconstrictors.The superior constrictor, at the top end of the pharynx, may assist in elevating thevelum. Contraction of this muscle also tends to lift the tongue root upwards andbackwards since at least some fibres of this muscle originate in the lower sides of thetongue. The middle pharyngeal constrictor originates from the hyoid bone and runs up55location of the lingual muscles7. Hyoglossus muscle8. Middle pharyngealconstrictor muscle9. Genioglossus muscleo. Geniohyoid musclei . Hyoid boneand backward to encircle the pharynx. Its contraction narrows the oropharynx, lifting thehyoid bone slightly in the process. Finally, the inferior constrictor muscle originates fromthe cricoid and thyroid cartilages. It is the strongest of the three pharyngeal constrictors.Its contraction can narrow the lower pharynx and upper larynx. It can also pull the larynxupwards if it is not fixed by the action of other muscles (e.g. the infrahyoids).The inner muscles of the pharynx include the palatopharyngeus and thestylopharyngeus. The rear faucal pillars, or palatopharyngeus muscles, are considered tomark the beginning of the pharynx proper. This pair of muscles originates in the velumand runs down the walls of the pharynx until it reaches the back end of the thyroidcartilage which houses the larynx. The palatopharyngeus acts in conjunction with thepalatoglossus (the front faucal pillars) to pull the velum downwards. These muscles mayalso contract like a sphincter, thereby pulling the faucal pillars together and reducing thedimensions of the oropharynx. Contraction of the palatopharyngeus can also assist inraising the larynx, thereby shortening the pharynx and overall vocal tract length, as wellas reducing the volume of the pharyngeal cavity. This latter effect is commented on byPike (1943:123-124). He suggests that faucal approximation is accompanied byconstriction in the lower pharynx as well as glottal tension and raising of the larynx.The second set of inner pharyngeal muscles is the stylopharyngeus, which ispaired (like the faucal pillars) and runs from the temporal bone in the skull into threestructures: the constrictor muscles mentioned above, the palatopharyngeus (front faucalpillars) and the back of the thyroid cartilage. Contraction of the stylopharyngeus pulls thepharyngeal walls and the larynx upwards (via the connection with the thyroid cartilage)or else it can widen the pharynx if the larynx movement is countered by the infrahyoids.56Figure 4.2, from Laver (1980:71) shows the front (palatoglossus) and rear(palatopharyngeus) faucal pillars, with the latter anchored to the thyroid cartilage.106Schematic diagram of the action and location of the velopharyngealmuscles, seen from behind (adapted from Van Riper and Irwin1958)i . Soft palate^ 6. Palatal tensor muscle2. Tongue 7. Palatal levator muscle3. Thyroid cartilage^8. Azygos uvulae muscle4. Palatogiossus muscle 6. Hamular process of the5. Palatopharyngeus muscle^pterygoid bonelo. SkullFigure 4.2: Velopharyngeal muscles (Laver 1980)4.1.3.3 The larynxFinally, there are aspects of laryngeal anatomy which are pertinent to a discussionand understanding of pharyngeal articulation (see Sawashima and Hirose (1983) for atechnical discussion).The larynx is surrounded and protected by three cartilages. The thyroid cartilage(Adam's apple) is the largest of the three. Both the true and the false (ventricular) vocalfolds are attached to the inside front surface of this cartilage. Beneath the thyroid is thecricoid cartilage. It too serves to protect the larynx. The two cartilages are linked by thecricothyroid muscles. At the back of the cricoid cartilage, the arytenoid cartilages are57located. The posterior ends of the true vocal folds are attached to the lower ends of thearytenoids, while the posterior ends of the ventricular folds are attached to the upperportion of the arytenoids. The large thyroid cartilage is also connected to the hyoid boneby the thyrohyoid muscles and ligaments. Recall that the thyroid cartilage also anchorstongue muscles (hyoglossus) and pharyngeal muscle (middle and interior constrictor) aswell as the stylopharyngeus and palatopharyngeus (rear faucal pillars).The muscular coordination involved in positioning the vocal folds for the variousphonation types is complex and delicate. A lengthy and detailed discussion can be foundin Laver (1980:99 ff.). The major point of interest here is the possible contribution of theventricular or false vocal folds to pharyngeal(ized) articulation. Both the true and falsevocal folds are part of the thyroarytenoid muscle- so named because it anchors in both thethyroid and arytenoid cartilages as described above, with the true vocal folds connected toa lower portion of the arytenoids than the false vocal folds. There is, therefore, a certain"depth" to the vocal folds, with the false vocal folds in a superior position to the trueones. The upper portion of the thyroarytenoid muscles, these so-called false orventricular vocal folds also have a slightly different composition from the lower, truevocal folds. The ventricular folds contain less muscle fibre, being described by Kaplan(1960, quoted by Laver 1980) as soft and flaccid, and they are covered by mucous tissue.In fact, Kaplan describes them as thick rounded folds of mucous membrane. Becausethey contain few muscles fibres, the contribution to phonation made by contacting thethyroarytenoid muscle proper is inefficient in the case of the ventricular folds. Anextreme setting of the thyroarytenoid is needed to get the ventricular folds to vibrateregularly. Possible ventricular articulations are discussed in sections 4.2.6 and 4.2.7.584.2 Articulatory descriptions of post-velarsIn so far as it is rational to describe the articulation of segments independent oflanguages in which they occur, the following articulatory generalizations can be offeredfor post-velar segments.4.2.1 Uvular stops /q,According to Ladefoged (1982:148), 'Uvular sounds are made by raising the backof the tongue towards the uvula'. A uvular stop then involves contact between theposterior part of the tongue dorsum and the uvula, or extreme end of the soft palate, as ismade explicit in Catford (1988:98): 'The extreme back of the tongue is in contact with theuvula and the extreme back of the velum' (see also Catford 1977:160, where he says thatthe dorso-radical surface of the tongue may be involved). Judging from this description,the tongue is the active articulator and the uvula the passive one. While this is generallythe case, the uvula itself contains the azygos uvulae muscle, the action of which may beinvolved in sealing off the velar-pharyngeal port. It is not inconceivable that the action ofthis muscle may also lower the uvula towards the retracting tongue dorsum in theformation of uvular segments. Constriction of the faucal pillars can also bring the uvulacloser to the tongue dorsum, but the primary gesture in the production of uvular stops isthe raising and backing of the tongue dorsum to contact the extreme back region of thesoft palate.Catford (1988) describes uvular stops as having a more 'sloppy' release thanvelars, since the tongue dorsum must pull away from the soft and irregular surface of theback velum and uvula rather than the relatively firm and concave surface of the velum.This tendency is often manifested by phonetic fricative release of uvular stops. Thiseffect is certainly evident in spectrograms of Interior Salish, and is reported by Matisoff(1973) for the aspirated uvular stop of Lahu also. There are cases of allophonic variationbetween uvular stops and fricatives in a number of languages. Elorietta (1991) develops59these phonetic facts in support of an argument that uvulars are halfway between velars(which show stable continuancy values) and pharyngeals (which do not bear distinctivecontinuancy values) in showing a ready tendency to lose distinctive values forcontinuancy.4.2.2 Uvular fricatives /x, g/Uvular fricatives are also produced by moving the posterior tongue dorsumupwards and backwards towards the uvula, but with a 'small central channel' (Catford1988) between the tongue and the uvula which allows the airstream to pass through.Widening this channel produces an uvular approximant. Uvular fricatives may tendtowards a trill because the small uvula is easily vibrated by the fricative airstream.4.2.3 Uvular trill /R/The uvula vibrates 'in a deep longitudinal groove ... formed in the back of thetongue'. The tongue shape is thus modified from the 'relatively flat or convex'configurations for the corresponding fricatives (Catford 1988:99).4.2.4 Pharyngeal stopSaid to be next to impossible to produce by Ladefoged (1975:143)3, but see thediscussion of epiglottal stop in section 4.2.6.4.2.5 Pharyngeal fricatives/approximants /h, S/Pharyngeals are described by Ladefoged (1975:143) as 'pulling the root of thetongue back towards the back wall of the pharynx', with /S/ often accompanied 'with agreat deal of laryngealization, perhaps because the necessary constriction in the pharynxalso causes a constriction in the larynx'. Ladefoged (1982:149) rephrases this to state that3Ladefoged (1982:149) rephrases this to say 'many people cannot make a stop in this position'.60the epiglottis is pulled back towards the rear wall of the pharynx. The distinction rests onwhether or not the epiglottis can be considered an articulator independent of the tongueroot. Laufer and Condax (1979) argue that the epiglottis is an independent articulator,Laufer and Baer (1988) retract this and say that it is not.Catford (1977, 1983) distinguishes two types of pharyngeal articulation: faucal ortransverse pharyngeal as opposed to linguo-pharyngeal. The former is produced bylateral compression of the faucal pillars high in the oro-pharynx, possibly withconcomitant raising of the larynx. Catford (1977, 1988) suggests trying to touch theuvula, thereby triggering the 'gag' reflex, as an approximation of the gesture for faucal ortransverse pharyngeals. Catford (1977) considers this the most common articulation ofArabic /h,V. Linguo-pharyngeals are described as articulation where 'the root of thetongue, carrying with it the epiglottis, moves backwards to narrow the pharynx in a front-back dimension' (Catford 1977:163). It is considered a lower articulation than thatproduced by transverse pharyngeal constriction.Catford's terminology obviously reflects an attempt to distinguish two types ofpharyngeal articulation- one relatively high in the pharynx, the other relatively low.While linguo-pharyngeals may better be described as epiglottal, as Catford himself laterconcedes, the IPA (1989) does not fully recognize the possibility of two distinctive sitesfor pharyngeal articulation. The IPA provides symbols for epiglottal segments, butoutside the bounds of the chart proper.4.2.6 Epiglottal stop I? /What is termed an epiglottal stop here (following revised IPA terminology),Catford (1988:101) describes as complete closure in the pharynx 'formed by folding theepiglottis back, as in the act of swallowing'. Catford (1988) remarks that some dialects ofArabic as well as what he calls Oriental Hebrew have a pronunciation of the 'amn (ICI) as61an epiglottal stop. He further comments that it is found in several Caucasian languages,where in Chechen, Ingush and Batsbiy it contrasts with fit.In earlier work Catford (1977) considered this type of epiglottal articulation to belaryngeal in the sense that it involves a ventricular (false vocal folds) place ofarticulation, albeit distinct from glottal (involving the true vocal folds). Thus Catford(1977:105) suggests that a ventricular stop can be formed by intense constriction of theupper larynx, though it likely cannot be made without simultaneous glottal stop. Plainglottal stop is distinguished from ventricular (plus glottal) stop in that 'the latter involvesa considerable feeling of upper-larynx constriction, which is quite absent from the former'(Catford 1977:105). That ventricular/epiglottal stop (also termed 'strong glottal stop')cannot be dismissed as an allophone of glottal stop is argued for by the contrast betweenglottal stop and ventricular stop in some of the Caucasian languages, mentioned above.Its existence is referred to in the Russian literature as 'pharyngealized glottal stop'(Gaprindashvili 1966, quoted by Catford 1977). It is possible that such a segment isbetter regarded as glottal stop with secondary pharyngealization or epiglottalization. Thefact that in later work Catford does not use the term 'ventricular' and instead substitutesthe term 'epiglottal', in line with other descriptions (such as the 1989 IPA chart) wouldindicate that a consensus has developed which considers these articulations as primarilyepiglottal, although they may involve some ventricular activity.4.2.7 Epiglottal fricatives /H, c /Such sounds, referred to as 'deep' or 'emphatic' pharyngeals are reported distinctfrom the higher pharyngeals AN in the Burkikhan dialect of Agul (a Northeast Caucasianlanguage) by Catford (1983). Colarusso (1988) mentions a Bzhedukh (NorthwestCaucasian) pharyngeal with breathy voice which he notes is made by approximating theepiglottis with the opening of the larynx. Catford (1977) also hypothesizes that theClassical Arabic pronunciation of 'amn (ICI) was likewise a ventricular/epiglottal62approximant, as evinced by some phonetic descriptions of medieval Arabic (see Semaan's(1963) translation of Ibn Sina's Risalah for example). Using the term ventricular (asdiscussed in section 2.2.6) Catford (1977) also reports a ventricular fricative trill inAbaza , and in Adyghe and Kabardian (all Northwest Caucasian languages) where thesound is used in Arabic loan words containing 'am.Finally, what Catford (1977:103) calls ventricular articulation in the Caucasianlanguages is said to impart a '"strangulated" nuance of pharyngealization' to adjacentvowels, whereas glottal stop and /h/ do not4. Catford's description links the Caucasianarticulation with the strident, pressed epiglottal vowels in !X66. Ladefoged (1983a/b)discusses epiglottalization in !X6s5 (based on work with Tony Traill), saying that itfunctions like a phonation type, forming strident or "pressed" vowels. Such vowels aredescribed as produced "by constricting the upper part of the larynx so that the posteriorend portion of the aryepiglottic muscle nearly contacts the root of the epiglottis"(Ladefoged 1983b:183). !X68 speakers (and Traill) are reported to have enlargedmuscular pads just above the larynx, presumably as a result of making this sort of sound.Ladefoged (1983b) refers to the !Xda phonation type as "ventricular" while at the sametime describing their articulation as involving the epiglottis.It should be noted that while some studies of Semitic pharyngeals (Laufer andCondax 1979) have claimed that the epiglottis is an independent articulator, later work(Laufer and Baer 1988) suggests that it is almost impossible to separate tongue rootactivity from epiglottal activity, and it is not clear that the epiglottis is an independentarticulator. However, based on the descriptions noted above, it may be that epiglottalactivity can be a component of primary laryngeal activity (as in !!X(56 and possibly the4Catford (1977) also mentions the contribution of ventricular voice to diplophonia, a condition where 'twovoices' can be heard, one with higher pitch relative to the other. While this type of vocal ability is generallyregarded as pathological in Western culture, 'double voice' is reportedly used by Tibetan monks whenchanting certain mantras. Laver (1980) discusses 'ventricular dysphonia' or 'ventricular voice' as apathological or paralinguistic phenomenon (expressing anger) but not as a phonological phenomenon. It isdescribed in the voice pathology literature as the result of excessive laryngeal tension so extreme that thetrue vocal folds are no longer well approximated but the ventricular folds are. Ventricular voice isdescribed by Plotkin (1964, also quoted by Laver) as 'characteristic deep hoarse voice'.63Agul 'deep' pharyngeals) as well as primary tongue root activity (as in the case ofpharyngeals lacking a distinctive laryngeal component).One further variation on the epiglottal theme must be mentioned. Hess (1990),based on observations on glottal articulation made by Lindqvist (1969), suggests that thepatterning of Arabic glottals with pharyngeals may be explained if their articulationinvolves the aryepiglottic folds (muscles which link the arytenoids to the epiglottis) aswell as a purely glottal gesture. This effectively links glottal articulation withpharyngeal/tongue root anatomy, and so treats all guttural glottals with a phonetic (andpotentially phonological) pharyngeal component. This view is formalized in Halle'sfeature geometry (Halle 1989), see section 2.3.1.4.2.8 Glottal stop /2/Catford (1988) and O'Connor (1973) define /?/ as complete closure of the vocalfolds with a subsequent build-up of pressure below the glottis and explosive release.Ladefoged (1982) simply defines it as complete closure of the vocal folds. The supra-laryngeal vocal tract may be in a configuration determined by adjacent segments.4.2.9 Glottal fricatives/h/Approximation of the vocal folds with the supra-laryngeal tract usually in theconfiguration of the following vowel (Pike 1943, Jones 1957, Abercrombie 1967,O'Connor 1973, Catford 1988). Shuken (1984( collects the various descriptions of /h/ asa voiceless glottal fricative (Malmberg 1963, IPA), voiceless or whispered vowel (Jones1957, Abercrombie 1967, Pike 1943), glottal friction plus oral cavity friction (Ladefoged1975, Pike 1943). Catford (1977) says that /It/ has cavity friction if supralaryngealstricture is greater that glottal stricture, if the other way round, it has glottal friction.64If/The voiced glottal fricative is described by Catford (1988) as a brief period ofbreathy or whispery voice (i.e. a reduced glottal opening compared to voiceless gestures,but not so close along the whole length of the vocal cords that the whole glottis vibrates,as in the case of fully-voiced sounds).4.2.10 SummaryIn the abstract then uvular articulation is achieved by rearward movement of thetongue dorsum to approximate the extreme rear of the velum. This is fairly clear from X-rays of uvular articulation in Arabic (Ghazeli (1977), Giannini and Pettorino (1982) andalso Caucasian (Colarusso 1988), but it must be remembered that such data are language-specific and the precise site of uvular articulation will vary somewhat from language tolanguage, as with other consonantal sites and depending to some extent on whether thelanguage has contrasting velars of the same manner of articulation. Depending on howfar back uvular articulation is, it will affect the dimensions of the upper pharynx, simplyby virtue of the fact that the uvular site is located at the juncture between the oral cavityand the upper pharyngeal cavity. Phonologically this is reflected in the fact that phoneticuvulars can pattern as dorsal articulations on a par with velars, or as pharyngealarticulations on a par with primary pharyngeals. This latter grouping is attested by theSemitic guttural class, which includes uvular fricatives and /h,S/. The patterning ofuvulars with velars as a class of dorsals is also attested in a number of languages. Bothpatternings are discussed in Chapter 6.From a phonetic point of view descriptions of ventricular/epiglottal as opposed tofaucal/transverse articulation suggest that pharyngeals can be achieved by (i) contractionof the upper pharynx where the palatoglossus and palatopharyngeus muscles (front andrear faucal pillars) intersect with the oropharynx and/or (ii) rearward movement of thetongue root, carrying with it the epiglottis and thereby achieving a constriction lower in65the pharynx. The distinction between the two types of pharyngeals boils down topharyngeal constriction achieved by internal and external pharyngeal musculature asopposed to that primarily achieved by tongue activity (retraction into the pharyngealcavity). Noting that the rear faucal pillars, while they originate in the velum also extenddown the walls of the pharynx until they reach the thyroid cartilage, one might expectupper pharyngeal constriction to bring with it a certain amount of general pharyngealconstriction. On the other hand a purely tongue root/epiglottal pharyngeal may not be soprone to upper pharyngeal constriction. In support of this, Ghazeli (1977) notes that theconfiguration for Tunisian A/ has a relatively large upper pharygneal area and maximalconstriction low in the pharynx.Further, although Caucasian data make it clear that languages can makephonological use of the distinction between two types of pharyngeal constriction, whatremains unclear is whether the laryngeal aspect of 'lower' pharyngeals in the Caucasianlanguages is secondary or primary. Given Caucasian contrasts such as found in theBurkikhan dialect of Agul /h, T, H, 1, ?, h, ?/ (Catford 1983) it would appear that wemust distinguish between pure glottals (h,?) pure pharyngeals (h,S) anddeep/emphatic/epiglottal/ventricular pharyngeals (i„ ?).As will be discussed in the next section, there is evidence from Arabic that itspharyngeals have a phonetic laryngeal component, but the phonological status of thisaspect of pharyngeal articulation is disputed. McCarthy (1991) claims it isphonologically irrelevant, whereas Halle (1989) invests the laryngeal nature of Arabicpharyngeals into his feature geometry.664.3 Natural language dataIn this section I consider how the language independent articulatory and acousticdescriptions of uvular and pharyngeal articulations correspond to real language data,specifically dialects of Arabic (with some reference to Hebrew and other Semiticlanguages where relevant), Caucasian and Interior Salish. This section collates availabledescriptive information on post-velar articulation from the various language groupsmentioned. Much of the information contained here is provided for purposes of referenceand comparison rather than argumentation.4.3.1 SemiticThere is so much dialectal variation among Arabic speakers, that it makes littlesense to discuss consonant and vowel articulation as if there existed a general "Arabic".What is commonly called "Contemporary Standard Arabic" is a modern form of ClassicalArabic (i.e. the language in which the Koran is written and formally read). It is thelanguage of learning, education and public address (radio, television, theatre etc.). In thissense a general Arabic does exist, with the caveat that it is spoken slightly differently inthe various Arabic speaking countries, and by the educated portion of the population.The vast majority of Arabic-speaking people use the vernacular of their region and herethe dialectal variation is considerable. Dialects described as "contemporary" refer to thatregion's version of Contemporary Standard Arabic, the classically based language.Dialects described as "colloquial" refer to the vernacular of the area or specific religiousgroups.Arabic dialect studies identify about eight major dialectal regions: Syrian (Syria,Lebanon, Palestine/Israel, Jordan); Egyptian (the colloquial of the sedentary populationof the lower Nile valley); Iraqi (ancient Mesopotamia); North African (Morocco, Algeria,Tunisia, Libya etc.); Maltese; Arabian Peninsula (Oman,Yeman,Kuwait, Saudi Arabiaetc.); Sudanese and Central Asian. The material surveyed here is limited to examples67from the Syrian, Egyptian, North African and Iraqi regions5. Where I have been able tofind information (in a European language) on Arabian Peninsula dialects (Saudi, forexample) it is included. Maltese is a unique dialect both historically and synchronically.Modern Maltese lacks some of the phonemes of other Arabic dialects and I will notdiscuss it further.The inventory of Contemporary Standard Arabic is as in (1). Although dialectalinventories vary, they are almost always considered to vary with respect to (1), and forthis reason it is useful to refer to it.(1) Contemporary Standard Arabic (McCarthy 1991)Lab Coronal^Emphatic^Velar Uvular^Phary Glottalb^df^0, s^ X^h^hz z1,rm nTables 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10 detail articulatory descriptions of dorsal, pharyngeal andemphatic articulation from at least one language in each dialect group. These tables andthe ensuing discussion do not claim to be exhaustive: there remains a considerable degree5The major sources I have consulted for the various dialect regions are:Syrian: Lebanese:Delattre (1971), Obrecht (1968)Palestinian: Blanc (1953), Card (1983), Herzallah (1990)Egyptian: Mitchell (1956), Harrell (1957), Erwin (1963,1969), McCarthy and Raffouli (1964),Khalafallah (1969), Gary and Gamal-Eldin (1982)Iraqi: al-Ani (1970), All and Daniloff (1972), Giannini and Pettorino (1982), Butcher andAhmad (1987).N. African: Moroccan: Harrell (1965), Heath (1987), Abdel-Massih (1974)Tunisian: Ghazeli (1977), Talmoudi (1980)Arabian Peninsula: Saudi: Lehn (1967b)Classical Arabic: Gairdner (1925)Medieval Arabic: Semaan (1963)68of extremely interesting variation that would doubtless reward further investigation. It ismy purpose here merely to give some indication of the type of variability in post-velararticulation that is attested cross-dialectally in the Arabic-speaking world.4.3.1.1 DorsalsThe following general points can be made about the data in Table 4.8. First of all,there is some variability in the description of velar and uvular segments. The plosives /k/and /q/, where dialects have both, seem to be distinguished by aspiration in the case of/k/, with /k/ also palatalizing in the environment of high front articulations. Some Gulfdialects (Holes 1990) show allophonic variation between such palatalized velars (/k,g/)and the (post-alveolar) affricates [tf, d3]. This would further distinguish velar plosivesfrom uvular plosives. Many dialects have lost the /q/ of Classical Arabic altogether,replacing it with glottal stop in many cases, but also with a voiced uvular plosive [G](Gulf dialects) or a velar, as in some Iraqi dialects. The fricatives symbolized /x/ and /g,y, g/ also vary between velar and uvular place of articulation. In some dialects they areclearly and unambiguously described as uvular in place, and pattern with the gutturalclass (uvulars, pharyngeals, glottals). In other dialects such as Palestinian, /x/ isdescribed as velar Blanc (1953). According to Blanc (1953), velar /x/ takes emphasis,but all segments in Palestinian are reported to take emphasis, so this will not distinguish itfrom uvulars. Herzallah (1990) considers the Palestinian guttural class to consist of /K, x,y, h, 2, h/ where /K, x, y/ are considered to be back velars. This latter classificationseems to be phonologically rather than phonetically based.69Table 4.8: Arabic dorsals1 Seg't 1 Region^IDialect^li Articulatory description^II Alternations Ik Syrian Lebanese no infoPalestinian post-palatal stop kc /i,a,yk, / CEgyptian velar stop k, /front VIraqi vls. aspirated velar stop ki /i(:)N. Africa Tunisian velar stopMoroccan vls. aspirated. velar stopArabP Saudi velar stopq,Syrian Lebanese reduced pharyngeal area; tonguedorsum at uvulak26Palestinian vls. post-velar stop q, /emphasisEgyptian vls. unaspirated. uvular stop 2Iraqi vls. unaspirated. uvular stop q,g,y,kN. Africa Tunisian reduced phar. area, tongue dorsumpressed against uvula, narrowing of oro-pharynx, narrowest at level of epiglottis,slight larynx raising but no contractionof laryngo-pharynx.Moroccan vls. unaspirated uvular stop, may beglottalized2ArabP Saudi has lost /q/g,y„g` Syrian Lebanese constriction high in pharynx formed bya circular motion of tongue root, sometrilling.Palestinian vd. back-velar spirant g, /emphasisEgyptian vd. uvular fricative g, /emphasisIraqi vd. uvular fricative velar /i(:)q (nomadic)N. Africa Tunisian vd. uvular fricativeMoroccan uvular, like Fr. 'r'ArabP Saudi vd. uvular fricative q (Hufaf)706ICfasrsghab dialect.x Syrian Lebanese vls. /g/; stricture narrower than for /g/Palestinian vls. velar fricative x, /emphasisEgyptian vls. (dorso-)uvular fricative x, /emphasisIraqi vls. velar fricativeN. Africa Tunisian vls. post-velar/uvular fricative like /g/but not as far backMorrocan uvular approximantArabP Saudi vls. uvular fricative4.3.1.2 PharyngealsWithin the class of Arabic pharyngeals, two major articulatory questions arise,both of which were raised in section 1.1. The first is whether tongue root retraction is theprimary gesture, with concomitant general pharyngeal contraction or whether the pharynxis the primary articulator with secondary tongue root retraction. The second queries therole of the larynx in the production of pharyngeals.With respect to the first question, Erwin (1963, 1969, Iraqi Arabic) and el-Dalee(1984, Lower Egyptian Arabic) explicitly insist that pharyngeals are produced byposterior pharyngeal musculature to the exclusion of tongue-root retraction. At the veryleast, if the tongue root is involved, it plays a secondary role. Of interest is that EgyptianArabic is described as permitting the spread of emphasis to all segments. It may thereforebe of considerable significance that the primary pharyngeals are described as pharyngealrather than tongue root articulations, thereby permitting the tongue-rooting (i.e."emphasis") of pharyngeals, so to speak. It may be that dialects in which the primarypharyngeals are described in terms of tongue root activity do not have this optionavailable, and so do not evince emphatic pharyngeals. Palestinian Arabic, which is alsodescribed as having emphatic pharyngeals would be another case in point, although thereis no explicit mention in the literature that I have reviewed that Palestinian /S,h/ are onlypharyngeal in articulation, and not tongue-root. That there may be two types of71pharyngeals (those which can be emphatic, those which cannot) which are phoneticallydistinct, has not been overtly discussed, to my knowledge. This matter requires furtherresearch.With respect to the second issue, the role of the larynx in pharyngeal articulation,it can be seen from Table 4.9 that alternation between the voiced pharyngeal and glottalstop, or creaky, allophones is fairly common. This alternation is attested historically also.The synchronic allophonic variation is non-distinctive, but suggests that pharyngeals areprobably being articulated with some laryngeal component, either raising of the larynx orcompression of the larynx due to the action of the middle and inferior pharyngealconstrictor muscles. The laryngeal component may be expected whether the relevantarticulator is the tongue root or the pharynx since both the hyoglossus and genioglossusare attached to the hyoid bone, which is also the origin of the middle pharyngealconstrictor. Further, the strongest external pharyngeal constrictor muscle (the inferiorconstrictor) originates in the cricoid and thyroid cartilages. Thus even general pharyngealconstriction may simply bring with it some laryngeal side-effects.There is particular phonetic variability noted in the manner of Arabic voiced andvoiceless pharyngeals. For example, Al-Ani (1970) reports that the most commonallophone of /3/ in Iraqi Arabic is a voiceless stop, whereas Ladefoged (1982) doubts thepossibility of a pharyngeal stop. Ghazeli (1977) refers to /V and /h/ as fricatives, but asnoted by Butcher and Ahmad (1987), Ghazeli's spectrograms do not support thisassumption for M. Klatt and Stevens (1969) suggest that /f/ is a sonorant along with /is/in Lebanese Arabic at least. Butcher and Ahmad (1987), in an effort to make sense of thevariant descriptions of pharyngeals as glides, approximants, stops and fricatives,investigated Iraqi Arabic pharyngeals both aerodynamically and spectrographically.Their findings are that /h/ is a voiceless continuant with high rates of air flow, highintensity noise in the waveform and a marked formant structure. /h/ did not havesufficient airflow to match the voiceless fricative profile that accompanied most tokens of72/h/. Based on airflow measurements /C/ is classified as a voiced approximant with glottalrelease in final position and a glottal burst in initial position some 60% of the time,accompanied by creak in almost all cases and with no evidence of friction in any tokens.In other words, the interpretation of A/ as a stop in Iraqi is better interpreted as a glottalgesture accompanying the pharyngeal constriction, possibly due to the extreme lownessof the articulation or the fact that some of the muscles involved in pharyngeal constrictionmay raise the hyoid bone and thus affect the orientation of the larynx in the throat.73Table 4.9: Arabic pharyngeals1 Seg't Region^Dialect Articulatory Description AlternationsSyrian Lebanese C, /emphasisv. low stricture between tongue andpharynx wall; small pharyngeal cavityarea, tongue dorsum higher and morefronted than for /a/; some larnyxlowering, dorsal bulge. Some creak.Palestinian vd. pharyngeal fricative with some stopcharacteristics Egyptian (radico-)pharyngeal c, /emphasisIraqi vd. phar. approximant, creaky withglottal release. Some tokens may bemade at glottis. Constriction of musclesof upper throat, walls of pharynxcontract.N.Africa Tunisian ?, creakvd. phar. fricative, contraction oflaryngo-pharynx by tongue rootretraction and pharyngeal wallmovement; larynx raised and tense.Tongue shape like a pyramid with bladeand dorsum straight and depressed.Large upper pharynx area. Mostconstriction 3.5 cm from glottis, at levelof epiglottis. Fl raised, F2 low. Moroccan vd. phar glide with some glottal stopcharacteristics. Simultaneous raising oflarynx and backing of tongue root(Harrell). Constriction lower andnarrower than for /h/, tongue dorsumraised to velum (Boff Dkhissi).ArabP Saudi vd. pharyngeal 214Medieval deep in the throat, where the air invomiting is located, at the opening ofthe larynx.h Syrian: Lebanese stricture lower and narrower than 1,pharyngeal cavity smaller than I.Palestinian vls phar spirant h, /emphasisEgyptian made in throat at point larynx rises to inswallowing, suggests retching, with rootof tongue filling throat.Iraqi produced entirely with throat action,tongue should not curl up or back(Erwin 1969); tongue root againstpharyngeal wall (al-Ani 1970);pharyngeal approximant, larynx raisedand maybe constricted (B&A 1987).N.Africa Tunis as with /1/ but constriction narrower,slight depression of tongue root —1cmabove epiglottis.Moroccan heavy breath through light constriction;fricative with higher constriction than I(B off Dhkissi).ArabP Saudi vls pharyngealMedieval where the air involved in clearing thethroat is located (i.e. higher in thethroat).744.3.1.3 EmphaticsThe use of the terms "emphatic" and "emphasis" to refer to a subset of thecoronal obstruents and their spreading effects in Arabic dialects is fairly recent.Traditionally the emphatic segments (in Classical Arabic) fall into two classes referred toby a number of terms.The term Wtbaq or mutbaqa is used by Sibiwayh (a prominent eighth century Arablinguist) and translates as "covered, lidded" (see Ghazeli 1977, Giannini and Pettorino1983). Used only of A, 4, s, 0/, the term refers to the 'trapping' of these sounds betweentwo places of articulation, one of which is a raising of the tongue toward the upper palate.While this description does not clarify whether the secondary articulation of z`baqsounds is velar or uvular, it is useful to bear in mind the following.The term 2isrlal ("raised") encompasses A, cl, $, 0/ and the dorsals /x, y, q/. It ispresumably a reference to the fact that the tongue dorsum is raised towards the roof of themouth in their articulation. The grouping together of dorsals/uvulars with retractedcoronals in an articulatory description may suggest they shared a uvular site in theClassical pronunciation which Sibiwayh describes. While it can be seen (Table 1) thatthere is frequent confusion within the class of dorsals, it is noteworthy that the phoneme/k/ is never included in the class of 2isilal consonants.Tafxim or mufaxxama ("thickening", "heaviness") is a more recent termintroduced in 19th century and applied to the emphatics. It has been used to refer to thefortis nature of A, 4, s, 0/. It is sometimes used to encompass the four 2itbaq consonants,the uvulars and possibly /1,r,y/, but not, according to Ghazeli, the primary pharyngeals.Ghazeli (1977) interprets tafxim as an auditory term, referring to the thick or muffledquality of such sounds.The discussion of emphasis by modern scholars tends to be inconsistent with thetraditional divisions discussed above. In some cases all post-velars (except glottals) areregarded as emphatic, in others, the classical divisions are referred to, with only the 2itbaq75consonants being emphatic. Both phonetic and phonological factors seem to havecontributed to the confusion, quite apart from the fact that both factors can vary fromdialect to dialect. It seems useful to reserve the term 'emphatic/emphatics' for the four2itb aq consonants. These are sometimes referred to as the primary emphatics,particularly in analyses which claim that the feature associated with the phonologicalspread of emphasis is underlying only on A, d, s, 0/ or some limited set of consonants.The terms pharyngeal and pharyngealized can then be reserved for /h,S/ and whatevertheir effects may be. This is contrary to some usage, such as Heath (1987), who refers toeffects from ?itbaq consonants under the rubric 'pharyngealized'.In terms of production, there has been tremendous controversy about the properarticulatory and acoustic description of emphatics, with the lips, tongue dorsum, tongueroot, epiglottis and pharyngeal walls all claimed to be relevant articulators. The acousticargument over whether emphasis is velarization, uvularization or pharyngealization hasgenerally resolved itself into a claim that emphasis is better described as acousticallysimilar to pharyngealization, meaning with a constriction somewhere in the pharynx (seeGiannini and Pettorino (1982) for a discussion of Iraqi Arabic). Whether emphatics canbe described as uvularized as opposed to pharyngealized remains unclear. Both phoneticclaims exist in the literature. Instrumental investigations, while interesting and helpful,do not entirely solve the problem.76Figure 4.3 reproduces X-ray tracings for plain /t,s /, emphatic /t, s/ and /q/.(Giannini and Pettorino (1982) : Iraqi Arabic). It is clear that reduced pharyngeal cavityvolume is common to the emphatics and /q/, and based on this one might describe theemphatics as uvularized. Giannini and Pettorino (1982) argue against this interpretationof their data however, preferring to consider the emphatics 'pharyngealized' on the basisof observed tongue root retraction which is claimed not to be present in uvulararticulation. Giannini and Pettorino (1982) do not provide examples of pharyngealarticulation to compare with emphatic articulation.77Figure 4.3: Iraqi Arabic: /t/, /t/ and /q/ (Giannini and Pettorino 1982)Laufer and Baer (1988) in a fibrescopic study of emphatics and pharyngeals inHebrew and a number of Arabic dialects, also claim that emphatics involve lowerpharynx constriction. They found the greatest degree of constriction at the level of theepiglottis, with the tongue root the active articulator. They argue that emphatics arepharyngealized, that is, with less constriction than /h,f/, but definitely pharyngeal ratherthan uvular. Further, they report a variety of Muslim Arabic in which the tongue dorsumis pulled down in the velar region, presumably ruling out the possibility of uvular co-articulation for emphatics.Ghazeli (1977) provides tracings of his own production of Tunisian emphatics,which he interprets as having a place of articulation midway between uvulars andpharyngeals, that is to say, with a general constriction midway in the pharynx. He doesprovide tracings of pharyngeal as well as uvular and emphatic articulation. Whentracings of emphatic articulation are laid over tracings for uvular fricatives andpharyngeals, the closest match is between emphatics and uvulars. Pharyngeals have alarger upper pharyngeal volume than either emphatic or uvular articulation. Pharyngealsalso have a more reduced laryngo-pharyngo volume than either uvulars or emphatics.This can be seen in Figures 4.4 and 4.5. In Figure 4.4 the leftmost tracing is of [x] in theword [xali] (solid line) and fg] in the word [ffali] (dotted line). The rightmost tracing isof [t] in [biSa] s(olid line) and [t] in [tbi:SEe] (dotted line). These tracings can then becompared with that of pharyngeal articulation in Figure 4.5.78Figure 4.4: Tunisian Arabic: /g, x/ and it, t/ (Ghazeli 1977)Figure 4.5: Tunisian Arabic: /C/ before initiation (solid line) and during production(dotted line) in [Tx:li]. (Ghazeli 1977)An interesting approach to the difficulties of reconciling what appears to becontradictory data is Hess' (1990) factor analysis of X-ray data, which includes Ghazeli'sTunisian and some Damascan data. Her results may lend some credibility to the term'pharyngealized' for emphatics in the sense that emphatics and pharyngeals were found toshare positive amounts of her Factor A (retraction of tongue root at the epiglottis, raisedlarynx and rearward movement of the upper pharyngeal wall). The pharyngeals AN areseparated from the emphatics by Factor B (lowering of tongue blade and dorsum,retraction of tongue root, raising of larynx) which achieves a low tongue body position.As coronals, the emphatics do not have a low tongue body position. As emphatics, theyhave reduced lower pharyngeal volume. Unfortunately, Hess does not include tracings ofuvulars in her analysis, so it is unclear what emphatics might share with uvulars under afactor analysis.Table 4.10 charts the description of emphatic articulation in the same dialectregions for which dorsal and pharyngeal articulation have been presented. Bracketed79phonemes indicate emphasis as a derived feature, though sources are often very unclearas to what segments are underlyingly emphatic, and what are derived.Table 4.10: Arabic Em atics[Language i Dialect Emphatic If ArticulationSyrian Lebanese b, d, t, z,$, Ill, 4,1/L.secondary pharyngeal constriction.Palest'n t, p, (f),m, 0, t,(Z), $, 1,(r)retraction of tongue, raising of dorsum to velum,advancing of lips, possible glottal constriction.Egyptian t, d,^, z,(r)Vowels: pharyngeal constriction, lowering of tongue,retraction of tge, protraction of tge. Consonants:velarization, alveolarization of dentals glottalization of AApost-palatals with tge broadening at closure point. Lipprotrusion.Iraqi t. 4, 0,(a), (1)centre of tge raised,tge tense and retracted, someconstriction of pharyngeal walls. Tge tip may beretracted. al-Ani's X-ray tracings show a flattened tonguebody, with considerable narrowing in the mid-pharynx.Giannini & Pettorino report that the tge root is retracted atthe level of the 3rd and 4th vertebrae, the hyoid bone isslightly raised, the larynx is not raised. Ali and Daniloffreport tongue root retraction, with overall tongue shapedistinguishing between plain and emphatic consonants.N.A. Tunis t, $, 0 back of tge moves to pharyngeal wall at level of 2ndvertebrae midway between place of articulation for /q/and /h/, palatine dorsum of tge depresses, rearwardmovement of epiglottis, no laryngeal displacement, nolip-rounding, no contraction of laryngo-pharynx.80Mor t, ci, s, (r)/b,m,z,l/maybecomeemphaticlower pitch,greater muscular tension, raising and backingof tge in roof of mouth.ArabP SaudiMedieval t, d, s, z larger surface of tge in length and breadth, hollow intongue surface, lateralization4.3.1.4 GlottalsIn all the dialect regions surveyed here, /2/ is described as a voiceless glottal stopor 'catch in the throat' (Ferguson et al. 1961). /h/ is referred to as a voiceless glottalspirant. Care is taken in some descriptions to contrast glottalic with pharyngealconstriction. Thus Erwin (1963, 1969) states that /h/ in Iraqi Arabic has no closure orstricture elsewhere in the vocal tract and that the throat is 'relaxed'. Gairdner (1925)makes the same kind of comment for the pronunciation of Classical Arabic. None ofthese sources record lowering effects on vowels from glottals. Alternation of PI withzero is noted in a number of dialects, for example by Blanc (1964) for Iraqi Arabic and byGarbell (1958) for Eastern Mediterranean dialects. Blanc (1953) reports /h/-->0/-# forNorth Palestinian.4.3.1.5 Vowel effectsAccounts of vowel quality in Arabic reflect a variation parallel to that found inconsonantal articulation. This is not surprising since vowel quality is clearly affected byconsonantal environment. The basic variation is tabulated in Table 4.11. Gaps in thetable indicate lack of specific information in the sources consulted.The effects of adjacent uvular and pharyngeal consonants are always local andaffect only vowels, whereas emphatic effects are long-distance and include consonants81and vowels. In general, the effect of uvulars and emphatics is considered roughlycomparable in phonetic terms, though it is always stressed that emphatic effects are themost striking. Effects from pharyngeals seem to vary from on/off glides to centralizationof vowels. It is noteworthy that Harrell (1957) describes the pharyngeals of EgyptianArabic as having no backing effect on the /a/ vowel. The phonetic realization of thisvowel is recorded as roughly [m] in pharyngeal environments as opposed to [a] in uvularand emphatic environments. This is sometimes interpreted as a 'fronting' effect, though itis not entirely clear that the vowel is being fronted by the pharyngeal. This may be aconsequence of two factors: (i) the pharyngeal is simply not backing the vowel, and sowhat emerges is a quality otherwise associated with pre-uvular contexts (ii) it may be thatthe pharyngeal in question is so low in the context of /a/ that F2 is raised, creating thefronted quality relative to uvulars and emphatics. The mechanics of this possibility arediscussed further in Chapter 5, but basically the explanation is this: a constriction lessthan 2 cm from the glottis is close to an F2 velocity minimum, constriction in thislocation will raise F2, creating a fronting effect. Trubetzkoy (1969:124) makes similarcomments about palatalization effects from pharyngealized consonants in Caucasian, aswill be discussed in section 4.3.2.3.In general I would comment though, that until descriptions of subtle variation invowel quality are investigated acoustically, they will remain difficult to assess. This isnot to say that researchers have transcribed incorrectly, but there can be no question that(i) transcriptions are filtered through the phonetics of the transcriber's native languageand (ii) the sound in question may contain a number of phonetic cues with thetranscription reflecting a decision based on only one of them. While spectrography doesnot solve all of these problems, it can frequently provide more accurate representations ofvowel quality. I wonder, for instance, if the [x] in the environment of Egyptianpharyngeals (Harrell 1957) is as high and front as that found in the context of pre-uvulars.82Table 4.11: Arabic Vowel Effects[Region^II Dialect I UR 'Plain II Emphatic^1 Uvular^II Phary. 0 Source^ISyrian Leb ii:aa:Uu:ti:am:uu:centralizedcentralized andloweredbackedbackeduu:ObrechtNPal iUai,tu,ux,acentralizedaao/OaBlancPal i:ie:ea:ao:0u:Ui:ie:em:s0:ou:ui:ie:,ea:, a:a0:5defectivedistributionu:u,CardEgypt i:e:u:o:a:iUai:e:u:o:m:,mrI,i0,ux,x'"^_as /q Ie:'5u:-o:a:iuai: + glideglideu:- +glideo: + glideeoa,xHarrell83Iraqi ii:e:aa:o:Uu:t.,ii:e,cE,Mx:,a:o:u,uu:ia i,iac,ea,oa,o0irtrL,Ec,eauErwinN. Africa Susa7 iaUicuiiaoiiaoiiaoTal-moudiMor8 iUaiuxeoa/a,eoatuaHeathClass9 i:iu:Ua:aituux:xglideglideuuaGairdner7A Tunisian dialect included here because Talmoudi gives more precise phonetic notations for allophoniceffects that does Ghazeli (1977). Ghazeli (1977) also says that for his dialect the true pharyngeals haveonly a minor coarticulatory effect on adjacent vowels which does not change steady-state vowel quality.He reports all vowels backed adjacent to emphatic coronals.8Harrell (1962) also describing Moroccan Arabic, gives the following alternations:Ii/^fel/emphatic C, uvulars and pharyngeals^/a/^[a]/ uvulars, pharyngeals,#[i]] elsewhere^ [a]/ emphatic C/u/^[ti )141,x,R,tiS [m] elsewhere[01/emphatic C, q[u] elsewhere9McCarus and Yacoub (1962) describing the literary Arabic used in Syria (i.e. educated speech based onClassical Arabic) note similar allophonic variation, with both long and short /u/ seemingly impervious tothe presence of back consonants or emphatics. They do note however that the "backed" allophone of allvowels is not so back in the environment of uvulars and pharyngeals as it is in the environment ofemphatic s .844.3.2 Caucasian4.3.2.1 DorsalsVelars and uvulars in Caucasian seem generally to be velar and uvular in place,although there is some interaction between velars and palatals. The rounded velars foundin all Northwest Caucasian languages are argued by Colarusso (1988) to be velar in place,with the distinction with rounded uvulars made by place, and not the affricated releasewhich occurs with plain uvular plosives. X-rays of Ubykh /x/ show greatest tongueapproximation to the uvula and reduced volume in the upper pharynx. This aspect ofuvular articulation appear to be crucial in the distinction between palatalized uvulars,plain uvulars and pharyngealized uvulars such as found in Ubykh. Palatalized uvularsshow no reduction of pharyngeal volume. Colarusso describes the tongue root asadvancing for this articulation, so that the tongue bunches in the mouth. Pharyngealizeduvulars on the other hand, show evidence of tongue root retraction to the extent ofpushing the epiglottis back against the rear wall of the pharynx.4.3.2.2 PharyngealsAs mentioned above (section 4.2.4 ff), the Burkikhan contrasts /h, 1, H, C', ? , h, 2/(Catford 1983) argue that languages can distinguish among two types of pharyngeals aswell as glottals. The Caucasian languages seem to be unique in using this degree ofdifferentiation in the pharynx-larynx region. Arabic and Interior Salish both contrastpharyngeal with glottal articulation, but not two types of primary pharyngeals. The terms'strong glottal stop' and `pharyngealized glottal stop' (Catford 1977) both suggest theparticipation of the larynx in the low, epiglottal pharyngeals. Catford's early descriptionof them as ventricular also emphasizes their laryngeal component.854.3.2.3 Pharyngealized consonants and vowelsPharyngealized consonants do not occur in all Caucasian languages. The core-inventory, as represented by Kartvelian for instance, does not contain CS (Catford 1977b)However, pharyngealization occurs on labials and uvulars in Ubykh. Two otherNorthwest Caucasian languages, Abaza and Ashkarwa Abkhaz have pharyngealizeduvulars. Such segments are relatively common in the North East Caucasian languages,being reported in the Lakk-Dargwa subgroup, Kubachi and some dialects of Dargwa, theLezgi subgroup and the Avaro-Ancli subgroup (Colarusso 1988).As mentioned in the discussion of Caucasian uvular articulation, X-ray data ofUbykh pharyngealized /x/ shows backing of the tongue into the pharynx with the tonguetip curled upwards. Bzyb pharyngealized /x/ shows no such tongue tip action, but similarretraction of the tongue root with the epiglottis pushed against the pharyngeal wall.Chechen (Northeast Caucasian) pharyngealizes its labials, dentals, alveolars andpalatals. Ingush and Bats (Northeast Caucasian) also pharyngealize labials, as do somedialects of Lakk and possibly Udi (Colarusso 1988). Pharyngealization is also reportedon vowels in some of the Lezgian languages. I deal here with the effects ofpharyngealized consonants first, excluding pharyngealized uvulars since they havealready been discussed.Acoustic investigation of the pharyngealized consonants of Chechen by Kingstonand Nichols (1986) reveals that Fl rises consistently, with lowering of F2 and F3dependent on the primary place of articulation of the CS. F2 does not lower withpharyngealized bilabials, a result which is explained by the already low F2 conditionedby a labial place of articulation. F2 is higher for alveolars, and so shows the effect ofpharyngealization by lowering. Based on such an acoustic profile, Kingston and Nichols(1986) argue that pharyngealization in Chechen is accomplished by constriction in thelower pharynx, with a resultant compact (F1 close to F2 and a lowered F3) as opposed to86flat (all formants lowered) spectrum. In support of this, they note that the acoustic effectsof CC and the pharyngeal consonants of Chechen are identical.Colarusso (1988:132) reports that pharyngealization of Ubykh (NorthwestCaucasian) labials (/pC, bl, phS, vl, wS, mS/) results in consonants of a longer duration,with an added formant centering around 500 Hz and 'the occasional addition of apharyngeal formant around 1100 Hz'. Colarusso further notes (footnote 4, p174) that'These formants coalesce with the first formant of an adjacent vowel to produce a verywide and loud first formant. Some workers have interpreted this as a raising of thevowel, since high vowels have low first formants'. Under this interpretationpharyngealization is called 'emphatic softening' or 'emphatic palatalization' (Trubetzkoy1969: 131). Trubetzkoy assumes that the tongue body actually fronts during thearticulation of Caucasian pharyngealized consonants, thus explaining what he calls anopening effect on vowels: i-->e, a-->m, u-->ä. This effect is basically a centralizing one,as can be seen very clearly in Figure 4.6, which plots Fl and F2 values given in Catford(1983) for VC in Udi, one of the languages specifically mentioned by Trubetzkoy ashaving emphatic palatalization effects. The Udi vowels are /i, e, a, o, u, il, eS, aC, oS, uC/with pharyngealized variants represented as capital letters in this figure.8788U§ --2000^-1500Aa-1000Figure 4.6: Udi VC (Catford 1983)Catford does not specify at what point in the vowel these readings are taken orwhether the vowels themselves are derived or phonemic, but Colarusso (1988:174) notesthat analyses of these segments (in the Russian literature) argue that the vowels bearpharyngealization rather than deriving it from consonantal environments. X-ray tracingsof VI in both Udi and Tsalchur (Gaprindashvili 1966, reproduced in Catford 1983) showtongue root retraction at the level of the epiglottis, a depression in the tongue dorsumopposite the uvula and a bulge further forward in the tongue. This configuration is veryclose to that of American English In (Delattre and Freeman 1968, Ladefoged 1979).GlottalsCaucasian /2,h/ are considered laryngeal articulations along the lines of thosefound in other languages, with the exception of the epiglottal/ventricular articulationsalready mentioned. /h/ can be voiced intervocalically. None of the glottals are recordedas having coarticulatory effects on vowels.4.3.2.5 Vowel effectsDescriptions of Caucasian vowel allophony are strikingly reminiscent of thosefound for Interior Salish. Kuipers (1960:22-24) charts front, central, back, higher andlower variants of the short vowels /a,a/ in Kabardian, with choice of variant dependent onconsonantal environment. Thus: 'Front variants (i,e) are found after lateral, palatalizedpalatovelars, uvulars and laryngals (after the latter two consonants central vowels are alsoheard), back rounded variants (u,o) after labialized palatovelars, uvulars and laryngals,central variants (a,ce) after other consonants. Before labialized consonants halfroundedvowels are found, central (0, 0) or back (u,o) depending on what precedes.. .Before thepharyngeal h there is no distinction between a higher and a lower vowel....(a:)...is in mostcases produced as a front a; back variants are found in the neighbourhood of uvulars andpharyngeals'.Colarusso (1988) reports that all tautosyllabic consonants colour vowels, withconsiderable variability from speaker to speaker and with some variation in default vowelheight from language to language. Thus the vowels in Circassian tend to be higher thanthose in Ubykh or Abaza. However, Colarusso's description of coarticulatory effectsfrom consonants to vowels in Ubykh is mostly very similar to Kuipers' description ofKabardian, given above. That is to say, anterior consonants condition front vowels, highconsonants condition high vowels, back consonants produce back vowels. Colarussoreports the pharyngeal behaves as a back consonant for purposes of vowel allophony10.With respect to laryngeal effects, Colarusso has the following telling comment: 'Todetermine the independent articulatory positions of /a/ and /a/ one may elicit them eitherformant values, Colarusso gives [a] in /qa/ sequence with Fl 800 F2 1400, but I know of no place inthe text where he gives formant values for pre-uvular articulation. With respect to the 3 vowels which hetranscribes as /a,a,a:/ Colarusso shows a formant plot for one Ubykh speaker which shows Fl for /a/ higherthan Fl for /a/, and /a:/ with a slightly higher Fl than /a/. There is considerable overlap, however.89in isolation, in the environment of a laryngeal, or next to a labial, providing in the lastcase that the informant utters the word in an isolated form and not in connected speech sothat the formant transitions due to the labial consonant can be ignored. In suchenvironments other factors affecting the position of the tongue are absent so that it mayassume the positions inherent in /a/ and /a/ themselves' (p. 299). Thus, laryngeals haveno coarticulatory effect on vowels.There is a complication however. Contrary to Kuiper's statement that thedistinction between high and low vowels is neutralized in the environment of pharyngeals(and the tendency for fieldworkers to report lowering of vowels in the environment ofpharyngeals), Colarusso (1988:336ff) claims that Caucasian pharyngeals absolutely donot lower vowel quality, and may even raise vowels. He cites Fl lowering from thepharyngealized uvular of Ubykh as an example and attributes this affect to the fact thatthe Caucasian pharyngeals are not articulated with dorsal gestures, and are in this sensesimilar to laryngeals and labials. This claim might be compared with Choi (1990) on thecoarticulatory effects of Kabardian consonants on vowels. Analysing Kabardian with /i,a, a:/ Choi's plot of the steady-state values of /a/ shows it lowest in the environment ofpharyngeals so that it approaches the value of /a:/ in the environment of velars andpalatals. Uvulars lower all vowel qualities, palatals raise and front, labials raise and back,velars raise the /a:/ vowel and back /i, a/. In general Choi's findings support Kuiper'simpressionistic account of Kabardian allophony and contradicts Colarusso's claim thatpharyngeals do not lower vowels. However, Colarusso's investigations are based onUbykh, not Kabardian, and Choi shows pharyngeal effects only on the /a/ vowel.Clearly, further instrumental work is needed on these languages to assess exactly whatrange of coarticulatory effects consonants may have on vowels, and what the acousticcues are for the extensive post-velar inventory.904.3.3 Interior SalishAs discussed in chapter 1, some of the languages of Northwest North Americapresent inventories with uvular and pharyngeal consonants. The most extensive post-velar inventory is found in Moses-Columbia Salish. The other Interior Salish languagesdo not appear to have both voiced and voiceless pharyngeals, but otherwise havecomparable inventories with respect to post-velar places of articulation.As with the Semitic material, descriptions of Salish pharyngeals vary somewhatfrom language to language. In particular, the degree of constriction seems to vary,resulting in fairly fricative-like sounds to very approximant-like sounds. Tables 4.12-4.14 present the available descriptions of Salish uvulars, pharyngeals and retractedcoronals along with the quality of contingent vowels. Glottals are not consistently notedas having an effect on vowel quality. It is sometimes noted that vowels followed byglottals are not as high as they are before pre-uvulars. This might be interpreted as alowering effect, but this can be argued against on both phonetic and phonologicalgrounds (see section 5.2 and chapter 6) For now, suffice it to note that glottals are neverreported to have effects comparable to those found in the context of uvulars andpharyngeals. Likewise, glottals in Caucasian and Semitic are not included in the class ofpost-velars for the purposes of vowel effects.4.3.3.1 DorsalsThe following generalizations may be drawn from Table 4.12.11 /q/ is generallyagreed to be uvular in place of articulation but the potential for non-native confusionbetween uvulars and velars is noted. Uvulars in all Interior Salish languages are11The major sources for Interior SalishN4e7kepmxcin (Thompson)LillooetShuswapColville-OkanaganSpokaneCoeur d'AleneMoses-Columbiaas represented in this table are:Thompson and Thompson (1992); Kinkade (1967)van Eijk (1985); Kinkade (1967)Kuipers (1974, 1989); Gibson (1973)Mattina (1973); Kinkade (1967)Carlson (1972); Kinkade (1967)Reichard (1938); Johnson (1977); Kinkade (1967)Kinkade (1967)91consistently reported to condition vowels of a lower quality than found in pre-uvularenvironments. Here, allophonic effects are reported from following consonants becausethese produce the strongest and most predictable effects.Table 4.12: Interior Salish uvular effectsLang[Articulatory description /V/ /-pre-I uvulars/-uvularsNI uvular place, but may be fronterdepending on speech communitylit/e//u//a/[i,i'][2][u,u' ][i,a,t,u][e,e1,[m][o][A]Lt uvular place, but close to velars;/q',q'w/ with affricated release thatvelar counter-parts lack/i//e//a//a/[e][x][0][a][E][a][o][A]Sh uvulars described as "post-velar" inplaceIi//e//u/A/[i][E,xl[u, o][t, a][2,11[a][o, A][A]Cr q-series called 'velar' ,but uvular inplace, k-series called 'palatal'./i//a//u/[i,e][x, 8][u,c][eta][a][a]Ms-Cmuvular lit/a//u//a/Rel[x,a][u,u,o][a ,u,i][e',2][a][ov,o][A]Co-Okpost-velar /i//a//u//a/[i,e][x,a][u,c][OA[9i, ia][a][o,au, 0][a]Sp unrounded q-series produced 'v. farback in the mouth' but roundedvelars and uvulars easily confusedby non-native speakersIi/le//u//a /[i][x,e][u][a, DAC][e,ia][a][o ,o][A,o]92Mayes (1979) conducted a spectrographic investigation of velar and uvular stoparticulation of one female speaker of Niekepmxcin.12 Formant transitions fromconsonants to vowels were not measured, so there is no indication of allophonic variationdue to a change in place of articulation from velar to uvular. Instead Mayes measuredclosure duration, burst duration and amplitude. Her findings are that /k/ has greater burstduration and frequency than /q/, but that /q/ has greater burst amplitude than /k/. It isshown in Chapter 5 that formant transitions also serve to distinguish velar from uvulararticulation, as indicated by the vowel variation in Table 4.12.4.3.3.2 PharyngealsPharyngeal segments (/1, I', Cw, S'w/) are found throughout Interior Salish, butonly Moses-Columbian has phonemic voiceless pharyngeals (/ti, hw/); all other languagesreport voiced pharyngeals only. Pharyngeals may have some upper pharyngealcomponent. The degree of friction in the voiced pharyngeal varies with some languagespresenting articulations so glide-like they are sometimes heard as vowels. Pharyngealsare reported to lower all adjacent vowels. Usually the similarity between pharyngeal anduvular effects is noted, as in Arabic. Kinkade (1967) notes fronting effects from Moses-Columbian voiceless pharyngeals.An example of the considerable difficulty experienced in the transcription of thesesounds can be found in Vogt's work on Kalispel (1940). Vogt proposes stressable/i,e,a,o,u/ for Kalispel, noting that /o/ is usually a "morphophonemic variant of /u/, butcases as sanos 'snot', oost 'he gets lost', contrasted with mus 'four', ust 'he dives' etc.clearly establish /o/ as a distinct phoneme" (p.14). Subsequent work has shown that thereare two issues here. One has to do with the proper identification of pharyngeals, for12Mayes's consultant was Mabel Joe from the Shulus Reserve in the Lower Nicola Valley, B.C., Canada.93which Vogt transcribes long vowels13, the other with a class of retracted roots foundthroughout IS. sanos belongs to the class of retracted roots sometimes characterised bythe presence of one of a set of retracted coronals and/or a vowel of particularlow/retracted quality. Historically these roots are thought to have contained a pharyngealwhich frequently appears in Colville cognate roots (Mattina 1979). Thus, the Colvilleword for 'snot' is transcribed by Mattina as seas (Mattina 1987). The root for Kalispeloost 'he gets lost' is transcribed in Spokane as Awos (Carlson and Flett 1989). Vogt alsotranscribes yesaacim 'I am tying it', with the root Vaac cognate with Spokane Vac(i),Colville Vfac, Nfakapmxcin vac. These correspondences suggest that what Vogt heardand transcribed as long vowels are actually pharyngeals.Gladys Reichard, whose grammar of neighbouring Coeur d'Alene (1938) wasread by Vogt, transcribed what she terms 'faucals', with the symbols /R, R'/ and /rw, r'w/.These segments, plus an apical /r/, form what Reichard terms the 'r-series', described asfollows:14The most distinctive phonetic characteristic of Coeur d'Alene is the r-series. Thesound written r is close to the apical slightly trilled initial r as it is spoken in mostparts of the United States, although the tongue is pulled farther back and the r isanticipated by drawing the preceding vowels correspondingly farther back. Thefaucal trill which may be surd (R) or labialized (rw) is difficult to make anddescribe.. .in order to achieve it, place the tongue in position for a, draw the larynxdown and back ... and trill the faucal region. For the labialized rw place the lips inthe position for labialization ... at the same time following directions for R.The implication of the term laucal' and the use of variants of r to transcribe them,suggests that Reichard thought of the r-series as uvular.Kinkade (1967) comments on the mismatch between Reichard's symbols andterminology (r-sounds, trilling in faucal region) as opposed to the symbols andterminology used by Vogt (1940) in describing the closely-related Kalispel. Vogt13Interestingly, some Arabic course books warn students that they may have trouble hearing thepharyngeals at first, and will likely mistake them for vowels, e.g. Erwin (1963).14It is not quite clear what Reichard means by terming R and rw as 'surds' if 'surd' means voiceless. As faras I know the Coeur d'Alene pharyngeals are not described as voiceless elsewhere in the literature, and thetokens examined in section 5.3.2.3 are not voiceless.94neither transcribes nor mentions an r-series. In fact, he interprets the Coeur d'Alenefaucals as voiced counterparts to the voiceless uvular fricative series, appealing to the factthat Coeur d'Alene has voiced counterparts to its coronal, alveo-palatal and velar stopseries, so that the faucals can be seen as filling in a structural gap among the uvularsegments. For structural reasons this analysis disintegrates when applied to Colville-Okanagan and Nxa'amxcin (Moses-Columbia Salish), since neither of these twolanguages has a voiced stop series, but both have pharyngeals (see Kinkade 1967).Kinkade's fieldwork in Nxa'amxcin, which has unmistakable /C, Cw, h,hw/, clarified the description of faucals/long vowels/r-sounds in Interior Salish. Then,gathering his own data and collating material from other sources, Kinkade demonstratedthe presence of pharyngeals throughout Interior Salish. Kinkade (1967) reports that thephonetic manifestation of these sounds varies somewhat from language to language andthis is confirmed by the range of descriptions in the various grammars. Kalispelpharyngeals are reported to be very hard to hear, while the series in Moses-Columbian isnot only supposedly the most pharyngeal, but has split into a voiced and voiceless series.The Nfekepmxcin pharyngeals are considered to involve some uvular frication/trill aswell as tongue retraction and general pharyngeal narrowing (Thompson and Thompson1992). van Eijk (1985) describes Lillooet pharyngeals as further back than the French orGerman uvular /R/ and more lax than Arabic IS/. The various descriptions of pharyngealsin Interior Salish are tabulated in Table 4.13 along with the reported coarticulatory effectson adjacent vowels.While I have not asked speakers of all the languages how to make pharyngeals,Agatha Bart offered the following description for Moses-Columbian pharyngeals: 'pullthe tongue all the way back in your throat, as far as you can go'. Mrs. Bart also reportsgeneral tension in the throat in making pharyngeals. These instructions can be comparedto Mrs. Bart's description of /q/, which she reports is made as if something is caught in95Table 4.13: Interior Salish pharyngeal effectsArticulatorx description/T,Sw/ involve some uvularfriction or trill, some creak.Retraction of tongue andgeneral narrowing ofpharynx.NfLang. /V/ /-pre-uvulars l-pharyngealas /q, seeTable 4.12asTable4.12as Table 4.12pharyngeal glide with wideaperture; further back thanuvular stops. More lax thanArabic 1.; some uvularquality reported close to a voiced uvularfricative or trill, with wideaperture. Sounds like apharyngealized back /a/. faucal trills formed withthroat drawn back, larynxdrawn down and back;voiced and uvular /V-V, -#but #S- is a voiceless [a]with friction; Avv- is avoiceless [D] with friction.ShLt Ii//a//u//a/asTable4.12asTable4.12/1/ vd. pharyngeal fricativewith little friction; /ti/strong vls. pharyngealfricative[x]/h,fother vowelsas /q, seeTable 4.12/a/as /q, seeTable 4.12as /q, seeTable 4.12the throat or nose. This would suggest a very back articulation at the velar-pharyngealport.96Sp^uvular-pharyngeal resonant asseries formed by narrowing Tablethe pharyngeal cavity with 4.12frequent concomitantnarrowing in the post-velarareaCo- Vowel plus pharyngeal^asOk^constriction, with greatest^Tableconstriction initially; all^4.12four pharyngeals voiced,with NS- sometimes auvular flap in Ok,sometimes voiceless in Cv.as /q, seeTable 4.12as /q, seeTable 4.124.3.3.3 Retracted coronalsThe occurrence of retracted coronals is relatively rare, but consistent withinNxa'amxcin, Nlakapmxcin and Lillooet. Where they occur, retracted coronals are alwaysapical articulations, as opposed to laminal. They also lower adjacent vowel quality andare frequently referred to as imparting a 'darkened' timbre (e.g. Kuipers 1989). Thephonological patterning of retraction is discussed in Chapter 6.97Table 4.14: Interior Salish retracted coronal effects(Lang. Articulatory description /V/ -/pre-uvular I-CNf k, c',^, z, z'/ tongue tipwith hollowing of tonguebehind occlusion. /1,17 are'dark'.asTable4.12as Table 4.12 as /qLt k,S,1,17 tongue-tiparticulation with retractionof tongue root considered asvelarization. /z, z'/ are laxdenti-laterals with localretracting effects.as /qSh k,s/ rare as /qCr In apical trill withtonguepulled back; backedapical trillas /qNx k,^, 1, 1%(13)/ as /qCo-Ok ,NoneSp NoneTo summarize: with the exception of Lillooet, vowel quality in the environment ofretracted coronals, pharyngeals and uvulars is reported to be very similar. van Eijk(1985) remarks on the pharyngealized quality of Lillooet vowels adjacent to pharyngealphonemes, and Kinkade (1967) notes that the low vowel /a/ of Nxa'amxcin is oftenfronted in the environment of voiceless pharyngeals. Other than this single case, vowelquality in the environment of post-velars is transcribed as lower or more back than thatfound in pre-velar environments.984.3.3.4 GlottalsInterior Salish glottals are referred to as glottal in place of articulation, withaspirated release noted for /7/, usually word-finally and in some cases post-tonically(Vogt 1940, Carlson 1972, Thompson and Thompson 1992). Thompson and Thomspon(1992) note occasional phonetic confusion between /h/ and dorsal spirants inMe?kepmxcin. /h/ is generally not found word-finally and is not common. Both /h/ and/2/ alternate with zero in rapid speech (Mattina 1973 for Colville-Okanagan). /?/ isrecorded as transparent to lowering from immediately right-adjacent uvulars in Lillooet(van Eijk 1985) and, as will be shown in Chapter 5, Moses-Columbian /2/ is transparent tocoarticulatory effects from consonants onto preceding vowels.It is sometimes the case that vowels do not achieve as high a quality in theenvironment of glottals as they do with pre-uvulars. There is variation on this: I havetranscribed relatively high and relatively low allophones in glottal environments, butvowel quality in the environment of glottals is never equated with that found in thecontext of other post-velar segments. This is clear in all sources. The Nxatamxcin datapresented in Chapter 5 show that all consonants have an effect on vowel quality, withpre-velars tending to raise vowels, post-velars lowering and glottals doing neither--hencethe transcription of less extreme vowel qualities in glottal environments.4.3.4 KhoisanIt has already been mentioned that some Caucasian language have pharyngealizedvowels. Some of the Khoisan languages also have VS (Traill 1985). The acoustic cues toKhoisan /aS/ reported in Ladefoged and Maddieson (1990) are raised Fl and F2, loweredF3 and diminution of energy in the 400-700 Hz region. The raised F2 of thepharyngealized /a/ vowel, which has the effect of fronting (or not backing) the vowelrecalls reports of fronting from pharyngeals in Nxa'amxcin, Caucasian and some Arabicdialects.99Khoisan strident vowels, which are distinct from pharyngealized vowels and arementioned in section 4.2.7, have a laryngeal component created by a constriction'between the part of the tongue below the epiglottis and the tips of the arytenoid cartilagesin the upper part of the larynx' (Ladefoged and Maddieson 1990:114). These vowelshave even more radical Fl and F2 raising, as well as F3 lowering on the /a/ vowel atleast. The acoustic profile of both types of Khoisan articulation suggests an extremelylow place of articulation.4.3.5 NootkaDialects of the Wakashan language Nootka include phonemic pharyngeals derivedfrom uvulars. /1/ is derived from /q', q'w/; /h/ from /x, xw/. Jacobsen (1969) argues thatthis is a very recent innovation which does not go back to Proto-Wakashan or Proto-Nootkan.There are no /q', q'w, xw/ in the modern dialects of Nootka. /x/ occurs in one rootand one suffix in the Kyoquot dialect of Nootka described by Rose (1981). /h/ sometimesalternates with [x], reflecting its historical origin as a uvular fricative. /hw/ occurs before/u/. In Nitinaht /q', q'w/ have become /V, but /x, xw/ have not become /h/ as in Nootka(Jakobsen 1969). All descriptions of the Nootkan sounds reflect a strong laryngealelement. Sapir and Swadesh (1939, quoted by Jacobsen 1969) describe the Nootka IT/ asa 'glottal stop pronounced with the pharyngeal passage narrowed by the retraction of theback of the tongue toward the back of the pharyngeal wall', while /h/ is described as 711/pronounced with the pharyngeal passage thus constricted'. The sense of a glottal elementis so strong that Sapir and Swadesh (1939) label the sounds as flaryngealized glottals'.Sapir (1911) earlier had described Nootka /1/ as "a peculiarly harsh and choky glottalstop.resembling Arabic 'am' "; in a later article he described M as 'a peculiar glottal stopof strangulated articulation and velar resonance'; Swadesh (1939) referred to M as a'glottal stop with pharyngeal constriction'. Nootkan /h/ also is likened to Semitic /h/ by100Sapir (1911). Rose (1981:14-15) describes pharyngeals in the Kyoquot dilaect of Nootkaas follows:The Nootka pharyngeals are not characterized by associatedlabialization or nasalization. The h is like a fricative inbeing composed of aperiodic noise, but it is like a resonantin having large formant transitions which are perceived as offglidesand onglides in adjacent vowels. The I consists of apharyngealized glottal closure which, like the h, is accompaniedby a raised larynx and a retracted tongue root. I is like a resonantin having no burst (i.e. a stop release). However, associatedlaryngealization, perceived as a series of 'cracks', gives the impressionof a series of stop bursts. Impressionistically, the Nootka I soundsmuch more stop-like and crisp than the Salish sound written withthe same symbol.The lowering effect of both pharyngeals on high vowels is noted in early descriptions (seeJacobsen 1969). Rose (1981) transcribes local vowel alternation which is very similar tothe Salish and Semitic effects already discussed.Table 4.15: K o uot Vowel allo hon (Rose 1981:16)/V/ Basic Alveo-palatalVelar_VelarRound ,Uvular UvularRoundPharyn-gealLaryn-geal .i I i i I' c £ £v I'U U U' U' U '. 0'. S o' U -a a,a £' £' A' a A' a' aThe glottal aspect of Nootkan /I/ is reflected in several processes. For example,some inflectional suffixes in Nootka cause glottalization of a preceding stop, affricate orresonant. /q, qw/ surface as [C] in these cases, suggesting that [5] is both uvular and[+constricted glottis]. Under the same conditions a fricative is changed to a homorganicglide. /h/ alternates with [w] in these cases, reflecting its historical origin in /xw/.Furthermore, Rose (1981) states that ejectives and 'other glottals such as /h, ?, I/ do notoccur morpheme-finally, and that vowels are retracted when adjacent to labialized or101pharyngealized consonants and are laryngealized adjacent to ejectives, glottalizedresonants, I and ?.It would appear then that the Nootkan pharyngeals maintain a structuralrelationship with uvulars. They may be better thought of as phonetically pharyngealizeduvulars with a glottal feature.4.3.6 HaidaHaida is a language isolate spoken on the Queen Charlotte Islands in BritishColumbia as well as Ketchikan and Hydaburg in Alaska. There are two basic dialects,Nothern Haida (spoken by the Alaskan and Massett people) and Southern Haida. Haidapharyngeals, like those in Nootka, are derived from uvulars. Krauss (1979) reports thatuvular /G,x/ have become pharyngeals in Northern Haida, but /q,q7 have remainedunchanged. /x/ has become a voiceless pharyngeal like Semitic /h/ in Massett, but inHydaburg, Krauss describes the sound as a 'hoarse pharyngeal trill'. Massett /G/ hasbecome a pharyngeal much like Semitic /C/, but in Hydaburg the /G/ has become 'anaffricate, glottal stop followed by a hoarse pharyngeal trill' (p. 840). Levine (1981) notesthat this phoneme can reduce to glottal stop then delete, whereas /h/ does not. If [G, x]turn up at all in Northern Haida, they can be traced to borrowings from Southern Haida.Very little is known about the phonology of these sounds.15Sapir's (1923) paper 'The phonetics of Haida' deals with the Southern SIddigatedialect which has not innovated pharyngeals from uvulars, and so contains no informationrelevant on this point.4.4 Acoustic consequences of post-velar articulationThe acoustic consequences of constriction in the vocal tract can be predictedtheoretically by modelling the vocal tract dimensions and cross-sectional areas resulting15I thank William Seaburg for sending me examples of Hydaburg pharyngeals. The /7/ is odd indeed andsounds like a cough almost. It is nothing at all like Salish /C/ which is entirely resonant.102from various types of articulation. This section discusses the acoustic effects of uvularand pharyngeal articulation as predicted by vocal tract modelling and surveys the resultsof acoustic studies on Arabic uvular, pharyngeal and emphatic articulation. Sincemodelling studies do not explore the theoretical consequences of post-velar articulation incombination with some other (primary) place of articulation (such as is found with Arabicemphatics) one can turn only to data-oriented studies to develop an acoustic profile ofpost-velar constriction as a secondary articulation. It should be noted however that such aprofile is specific to the language and segments in question and can be extended to othercases considered to involve some post-velar component only with caution.Modelling studies predict that there is a unique class of articulation made in thepharynx with two major constriction sites: the upper and lower pharynx. Differences inFl values distinguish the two articulations, with what we transcribe as pharyngealshaving a higher Fl than what we transcribe as uvulars. Natural language data fromstudies on Semitic confirm these predictions.4.4.1 Uvulars and pharyngealsKlatt and Stevens (1969) calculate the resonances for sounds with primaryconstriction in the pharynx, given three different constriction sizes. Their predictions arethat for a constriction between 3-7cm from the glottis, which they estimate as appropriatefor the articulation of pharyngeal and uvular consonants in general, the first formant willbe high and the second formant will be low. Although they remark that this area of thevocal tract is relatively insensitive to the exact location of constriction, within thisarticulatory and acoustic class, a constriction approximately 3-4 cm from the glottis(pharyngeals) besides having high Fl and low F2 is predicted to have F3 lower than aconstriction 7 cm from the glottis (uvulars). Klatt and Stevens comment further that F2for the uvular articulation may also be lower relative to F2 for the pharyngeals. Uvularsare also predicted to exhibit a higher F3 than pharyngeals, with F3 close to F4, leaving a103wide gap between F2 and F3. For more constricted configurations, Fl is predicted to belower for uvulars than for pharyngeals. These general predictions are given in Table4.16.Table 4.16: Klatt and Stevens (1969) Constriction area 0.05 and 0.1 cm2Constriction site^—II Consonant type Fl F2 F31 11cm fromglottisvelar low near F37 cm fromglottisuvular high lower close to F43-4cm fromglottispharyngeal higher low lowerAlwan (1986), uses a vocal tract model with tapered junctions between eachcavity and the constriction site, thus avoiding sharp discontinuities in area functions thatthe Klatt and Stevens (1969) model does not. In general her more refined modellingsupports the predictions made by the Klatt and Stevens model. Table 9 summarizesAlwan's predictions for uvular and pharyngeal articulation based on a constriction area of0.15 cm2. Of the three constriction areas for which Alwan makes predictions, 0.15 cm2 isclosest to the figures (0.05 and 0.1 cm2) discussed by Klatt and Stevens (1969) in the textof their paper. Thus it is the most appropriate choice for comparisons between the twomodels.Alwan's results also indicate that Thu s articulated with a tighter constriction than/V, since her model compares more favourably with real data when the area ofconstriction for /11/ is less than that for /c/ (0.15 vs 0.25 cm2).104Table 4.17: Alwan (1986) Constriction area 0.15 cm2, length of constriction lcm.ConstrictionsiteConsonant type Fl (Hz) F2 (Hz) I^F3 (Hz) 3cm fromglottisr 715 1152 2263h 747 1785 23448cm fromglottisis 483 1241 2610X 553 1241 2737Alwan (1986) also conducts perceptual tests which confirm the centrality of Flvalues as a cue to distinguishing uvular from pharyngeal place of articulation in Arabic.Using native speaker16 judgements of [Sa:] and [ica:] stimuli in which F2 is held constant,it was found that Fl is an essential cue for identifying place of articulation. Alwan(1986:109-110) reports that an onset value of Fl which is 'at least as high as that in thesteady state of the vowel...results in the perception of a pharyngeal, and its perceptionincreases with increasing Fl onset value. The uvular on the other hand, is perceivedwhen the onset value of Fl is at least 90 Hz less than that during the steady state of thevowel...'.The results of perceptual experiments reported in el-Halees (1985) are inagreement with the finding that Fl is a crucial cue not only to a post-velar place ofarticulation, but to distinctions within it. Tokens with higher Fl transitions fromconsonant to vowel were judged as pharyngeal rather than uvular by el-Halees' Jordaniansubjects. In fact, Fl transitions alone proved sufficient to cue the distinction betweenuvular and pharyngeal place of articulation.Natural language dataAcoustic studies of Arabic language data confirm that post-velar articulationraises Fl values, with the Fl for pharyngeals being higher than that for uvulars. Theresults of several such studies are presented in Tables 4.18-21. Of particular note is the16mwan's subjects for this particular experiment consist of 3 Iraqis, 1 Kuwaiti, 1 Lebanese and 1 Sudanese.105range of formant values reported for both uvular and pharyngeal articulation. Mostly itvaries depending on the vowel which follows, but it also varies considerably acrossstudies and according to dialect as well as within and across speakers of the same dialect.Based on four studies alone, the Fl of /I/ ranges from 464-900 Hz, of /h/ from 433-1100Hz; F2 ranges form 1065-1887 Hz for /S/ and from 1050-1937 Hz for /h/. There is lessdata on uvulars, but what there is produces an Fl range of 382-600 Hz, and an F2 rangeof 782-1300 Hz. Presumably the considerable variation reflects both contextual effectsand basic variation in location of articulation.The studies below concentrate on uvular and pharyngeal data, but Kuriyagawa(1984) compares Cairene /k/ versus /q/ and finds strong F2 lowering and Fl raisingeffects on vowels from /q/ which distinguish it from /k/. Kuriyagawa (1984) particularlynotes the extreme extent of F2 lowering conditioned by /q/.Alwan (1986)Table 10 is based on data averaged from four speakers (3 Iraqi, 1 Lebanese) inAlwan (1986), with measurements taken at the onset of the vowel in CV: sequences takenfrom ?V:CV: or CV: nonsense utterances. As a point of comparison, Alwan gives thesteady-state values for /i:,a:,u:/ in post-velar contexts averaged across four speakers andbased on ten tokens per speaker. In the case of pharyngeal-V: sequences Fl fallsconsistently regardless of vocalic environment, but for the uvulars, Fl falls in Qi: and Qu:but rises in Qa: sequences. The fall in Fl from offset of the pharyngeal to steady-state ofthe vowel is greater in the case of pharyngeals than uvulars, thus corroborating theprediction that pharyngeals have a higher Fl than uvulars.106Table 4.18: Arabicpost-velars (Alwan 1986)I^Seg't^Vowel /a:/ Vowel /i:/ Vowel /u:/FlIF2 F3 Fl F2 F3 Fl F2 F31 728 1181 2224 492 1887 2561 464 1065 2022h 739 1266 2321 453 1937 2592 453 1181 2084x 584 1294 2553 382 1987 2604 403 790 2472q 587 1143 2522 409 1784 2574 401 782 2562Steady-stateVowel,661 1206 2470 311 2213 2751 350 786 2414Ghazeli (1977)Table 4.19 summarizes the figures available from Ghazeli (1977) who recordedtwo CV tokens of each type (C a uvular or pharyngeal, V one of /i,a,u/) from twelvesubjects of various dialects (6 Tunisian, 2 Libyan, 1 Algerian, 1 Cairene, 1 Jordanian, 1Iraqi). Readings are taken at the boundary between the consonant and the vowel. Henotes interdialectal variability of +/- 50 Hz on Fl, +/- 100 Hz on F2 and +/- 250 Hz on F3and considerable dialectal variation on the value of the low vowel when it is not in a post-velar environment, e.g. [c/x] for Libyan and Cairene speakers and [w/a] for the Jordanianspeaker. Despite variation Fl is high for pharyngeals regardless of following vowel,though highest for pharyngeal-a sequences. Ghazeli does not provide figures for uvulararticulation other than next to the /a/-vowel.Table 4.19: Arabic ost-velars Ghazeli 1977IBM^Vowel /a/^Vowel /i/ Vowel /u/Fl F2 F3 Fl F2 F3 ,^Fl F2 F3I 900 1450 2300 700 1700 , 2700 650 1300 ,^1700h 1100 1700 2300 700 1800 2700 550 1100 1700is 500-6001200-13002300-2600107Butcher and Ahmad (1987)Butcher and Ahmad (1987) recorded three speakers of Iraqi Arabic with fiverepetitions of a series of CVC tokens. Their tokens were (mostly nonsense) words of theshape CIVC2 with a pharyngeal in C1 or C2 position, and V ranging over /i:, e:, a:,.o:, u:,i, a, u/. Values for the pharyngeals tabulated here are taken at the pharyngeal-vowelboundary of a T/hVC sequence. For comparison, Butcher and Ahmad present formantvalues taken at the steady-state portion of each vowel following a glottal consonant. Thisis intended to serve as an indication of what vowel-quality is like when unaffected byadjacent consonants. Fl values for pharyngeal -a: sequences are not as high as thosefound by Ghazeli (1977). Fl values for the pharyngeal -i sequence are higher than thosereported by Ghazeli. Compared to the values for vowels preceded by glottals, Fl isconsistently higher for pharyngeals, by as much as 100% on the Ii:/ vowel for instance.This should be compared to the values reported by Adamson (1981) for Sudanese Arabic,Table 4.21, where Fl is not nearly so high in absolute terms for pharyngeal-i sequences,but Fl doubles in pharyngeal environments, just as it does in the Iraqi data.Table 4.20: Iraqi abicpharygeals and glottals (Butcher and Ahmad 1987)[^Seg't Vowel /a:/ Vowel /i:/ Vowel /u:/Fl F2 F3 Fl F2 F3 Fl F2 F3T 861 1408 2036 815 1461 2386 602 1203 1566h 855 1517 1979 761 1767 2789 642 1222 17782 690 1195 2588 398 2366 3130 412 592 unclearh 727 1296 2487 375 2329 _ 3070 _ 416 680 2535Adamson (1981)This study uses real (rather than nonsense) C1VC2 words in a sentence frame,with C1 a pharyngeal and readings taken at the pharyngeal-vowel boundary for /h/ butduring the consonant itself for /C/. The vowel values which are provided for reference are108taken from the steady-state portion of the same CVC sequences. Readings are taken fromfour speakers of Sudanese Arabic, 23 words per subject.Table4.21: Sudanese Arabic pharyngeals and reference vowels (Adamson 1981)I^Seg't Vowel /a/^Vowel /i/ Vowel /u/Fl F2 F3 Fl F2 F3 Fl F2 F31 580 1440 2266 500 1600 weak 475 1150 weakh 650 1450, 433 1800 460 1050Steady-stateVowel500 1500 250 2100 250 9004.4.2 EmphaticsAs mentioned, acoustic modelling of post-velar articulation does not deal directlywith the effect of post-velar secondary articulation. However, extrapolating the verifiedprediction that post-velar constriction, such as found in both uvular and pharyngealarticulation, results in high Fl and low F2 values, one would expect to find some effect ofthis sort even in complex articulations where post-velar constriction is not the onlyarticulatory gesture. The classic example of such an articulation is of course the class ofArabic emphatics, which combine a coronal place of articulation with post-velarconstriction. A comprehensive review of the history of scholary inquiry into Arabicemphatics can be found in Giannini and Pettorino (1982). In brief, all studies concur thatF2 lowering is a cue to emphatic articulation (Obrecht 1968, al-Ani 1970, Giannini andPettorino 1982, Card 1983, el-Halee 1985) but the contribution of Fl, which has beenshown to be so critical in modelling uvular and pharyngeal articulation, is mostly ignoredby both Obrecht17 (1968) and Card (1983). Giannini and Pettorino (1982) note theomission of Fl effects in Obrecht's work and based on their own investigation of an Iraqi170brecht (1968) justifies the exclusion of Fl effects from his study on the basis of preliminaryspectrographic investigation which showed that F2 was the most powerful cue. His own data though, doshow Fl effects.109Arabic speaker, they find that both Fl and F2 effects cue emphasis, although F2 seems tobe the most consistent cue. This general finding is supported by al-Ani (1970), Ghazeli(1977), al-Ani and el-Dalee (1984), el-Dalee (1984), el-Halees (1985) and Laufer andBaer (1988). While F2 effects feature most prominently in descriptions of emphasis el-Dalee (1984) and el-Halees (1985) found that Fl lowering was particularly striking on theemphatic pharyngeals [C, h]. In contrast, Card (1983) reports a 700 Hz lowering of F2 for[s] and does not mention Fl effects.18 Table 4.22 charts the results of al-Ani and el-Dalee's work on 220 [?VCV] utterances by an Alexandrian speaker with C varyingbetween emphatic and non-emphatic articulation. Measurements are taken at the vowel'ssteady state.Table 4.22: Alexandrian emphatic effects (al-Ani and el-Dalee (1984))Plain EmphaticVowel Fl F2 Vowel Fl F2a 743 1614 a 736 1062i 314 2086 i 495 1667u 357 850 u 371 867Norlin (1987) investigates the acoustic properties of emphasis in Egyptian Arabicusing real monosyllabic and disyllabic words containing the vowels /i:, e:, a:, o:, u:/ and/i, a, u/ in four phonolocial contexts: CV(:)C; CV(:)C; CV(:)C ; CV(:)Q. All tokenswere produced six times in a sentence frame.by nine male native speakers from Cairo.The first instance was discarded, formant frequencies were taken from the steady stateportion of stressed vowels. Fl and F2 variation across speakers was found to be small,with F3 variation larger. Table 4.23, which presents average formant values for ninespeakers (5 tokens each) of /i, a, u/ in plain and emphatic contexts, illustrates the dramaticlowering of F2 triggered by emphatic consonants. Fl raises, but minimally in18However, from what I can decipher of the spectrograms in my copy of her dissertation, it looks as if Flraises also.110comparison to F2 movement. Based on t-tests on measurements of the differencebetween long vowels in plain and emphatic contexts, a cline of the order /a:/ > /i:, el >/u:, o:/ is reported. However, Norlin reports that differences in transition onsets increaseso as to compensate for the minimal steady state distinction between high back vowels inplain and emphatic contexts. In summary, high vowels are affected less that low vowelswhile front vowels are affected more than back vowels. The /a, al vowels of EgyptianArabic are relatively front.Table 4.23: Eg • tian emphatic effects (Norlin 1987)Plain^ Em haticVowel Fl F2 Vowel Fl F2i 435 1915 i 450 1485a 615 1585 a 630 1165u 415 1120 u 450 955Norlin also investigates the spectral properties of emphatic and non-emphaticsibilants using data from real words in initial postion of a carrier sentence. Nodifferences could be quantified based on examination of the waveform and spectrograms.The only quantitative measure which differentiates between plain and emphaticconsonants is the centre of gravity (a measure of the overall pitch level of the spectrum)in the critical band spectra. 14/ has lower centre of gravity than /s/ except for one speaker,and greater dispersion (i.e. a flatter spectrum). /z/ has a lower gentre of gravity than /z/,and /z, z/ have flatter spectra than /s, 4/. Norlin finds very little affect from emphatics on/u/.An obvious question raised by the acoustic description of emphasis is how itcompares with the acoustics of other segments involving post-velar articulation.Comparing the loci for Fl F2 and F3 for velar, uvular, pharyngeal and emphaticconsonants, Giannini and Pettorino (1982) note that emphatic articulation is like post-111velar articulation in having (i) a high Fl loci and (ii) a low F2 loci. Table 4.24summarizes the basis for these observations. The Fl locus for uvulars is reported as 500Hz, for pharyngeals 1000 Hz and for emphatics 600 Hz. All of these values aredramatically higher than the Fl loci reported for velars (250 Hz) and for the non-emphatic counterparts (250Hz) of the emphatics under consideration. Emphatics alsopattern with uvulars and pharyngeals against both velars and non-emphatic coronals inobserved F2 loci.Table 4.24: Consonantal loci in Iraqi Arabic (Giannini and Pettorino 1982)Articulation Fl loci (Hz) F2 loci (Hz)Velar stop 250 2300Uvular stop 500 1400Uvular fricatives 500 1500Pharyngealfricatives1000 1500Emphatic s 600 1000Non-emphatics 250 2000Despite not discussing the contribution of Fl to emphatic effects, Card (1983)does provide Fl and F2 readings for emphatic and non-emphatic minimal pairs. Figures4.7 and 4.8 plot the steady-state readings of long and short vowels in an emphatic andnon-emphatic environment. Arrows go from the non-emphatic vowel to the emphaticvowel. All four of Card's Palestinian speakers are represented. While some speakersshow considerable Fl effects and lower emphatic vowels, all speakers show F2 effects onshort vowels. The situation with long vowels is more complicated. /u:/ is minimallyeffected by emphasis, but that is well-described in the literature. 1o:/ lowers considerablyfor all four speakers, but these findings are based on only one form for each speaker. /a:/mostly just backs; /i:/ even raises for two speakers and /e:/ lowers for three and raises forone. For one speaker the difference between emphatic and non-emphatic /e:/ is lowering.11200a^A,^ A113-1600^-1400^-1200^-1000F2(Hz)Source: Card (1983)Figure 4.7: Palestinian Arabic Short Vowels: Plain and EmphaticCI00 _o-2000 -1500^-1000F2(Hz)Source: Card (1983)Figure 4.8: Palestinian Arabic Long Vowels: Plain and EmphaticThe acoustic effects of Caucasian pharyngealized consonants have already beendiscussed in section 4.3.2. The VT of Udi (Figure 4.6) show centralizing of a sort not atall reminiscent of the Arabic data plotted in Figures 4.7 and 4.8. There is no acousticdata on Interior Salish retracted coronals other than that reported on in the next chapter ofthis dissertation (section 5.2.4).4.4.3 GlottalsAs discussed in sections 4.2.8 and 4.2.9, glottal articulation is achieved byadduction of the vocal chords. While there may be tongue body movement associatedwith glottals, it varies according to vocalic environment and so cannot be viewed asintrinsic to the glottal segment itself. Given the lack of an intrinsic supra-laryngeal vocaltract configuration for glottals, the effect of a purely glottal gesture should in itself haveno effect on the formant structure of adjacent segments. This can be shown to be truefrom both a perceptual and acoustic point of view. Proving the perceptual relevance offlat formant transitions for /?/, Alwan (1986:106) synthesizes flaa/ sequences with noformant transitions from the /?/ to the vowel. Such tokens are judged as glottal stop initialby her Arabic-speaking subjects, whereas /Taa/ and /isaa/ sequences crucially requireformant movement from the consonant to the vowel in order to be correctly identified.On the acoustic front, Butcher and Ahmad (1987) use /?/ as a touchstone to highlight theformant effects of pharyngeal articulation in Arabic. As phoneticians their understandingis that glottal articulation, since it lacks an intrinsic gesture other than that of vocal foldadduction, is ideally suited as a neutral benchmark against which the supra-laryngealarticulatory effects of other segments can be gauged. In confirmation of this,spectrograms of vowel-glottal sequences in the Iraqi Arabic of Butcher and Ahmad'sconsultants show no transition from the vowel into the consonant (Butcher and Ahmad1987). This is in direct comparison to spectrograms of vowel-pharyngeal sequences,which show F2 lowering and Fl rising as the vocal tract assumes the post-velar114constriction appropriate for A,h/. Klatt and Stevens' (1969) spectrograms of a Lebanesespeaker's /ha-/ and /7a-/ sequences likewise show no formant transitions from theconsonant to the vowel onset. That the supra-laryngeal vocal tract assumes theconfiguration of adjacent segments while the glottis adjusts appropriately for /h/ or /7/ isillustrated by O'Connor (1973), who shows spectrograms of [#hi], [#ha] and [#11o]sequences in which the intial [h] reflects the formant structure of the following vowel.4.5 Summary and conclusionsIt has been demonstrated from language-independent and language-particularfacts that there is an articulatory and acoustic class of uvulars distinct from that of velars.This of course has been known for some time, but the various types of evidence for thedistinction between the two classes are rarely brought together in a way that predicts thedual nature of uvular articulation given its uniqueness with respect to position in thevocal tract and its connections with both dorsal and pharyngeal musculature.The uvular place of articulation distinguishes itself by being at the juncturebetween the extreme posterior end of the oral cavity and the top end of the pharyngealcavity. As a consequence, uvular articulation reduces upper pharyngeal cavity volume ina way that velar articulation does not. This results in high Fl values for uvulars relativeto pre-uvular segments. This is verified by the acoustic examination of uvulararticulation in Semitic and will be shown to hold for Interior Salish in the followingchapter. Furthermore, while the velars and uvulars contrast in many languages, there arealso clear phonetic (and phonological) affiliations between the two since both velars anduvulars are made by dorsal gestures to the front (velars) or rear (uvulars) of the soft palate(see Cole 1987, McCarthy 1989, 1991, Elorrieta 1991).With respect to pharyngeals, there appear to be two types: those with a relativelyhigh constriction in the pharynx, and those with a relatively low constriction in thepharynx. No language contrasts an upper pharyngeal, a middle pharyngeal and a low115pharyngeal. In those (rare) cases where a phonemic contrast is maintained between twotypes of pharyngeals, a laryngeal component is evident in the lower one. This is certainlytrue in the description of Caucasian 'deep' or 'emphatic' pharyngeals. Another example ofpharyngeal articulation with a phonemic laryngeal component is found in the InteriorSalish contrast between /f/ with /V. In some of the languages the contrast exists withiiw/ and /C'w/ as well. Glottalization is a pervasive feature on all resonants in InteriorSalish- /T'S'w/ are simply patterning as resonants with the laryngeal feature [constrictedglottis] in these cases. This raises the question of whether the Caucasian segments arestructurally to be viewed as glottalized versions of the 'higher' pharyngeals (T'), or aspharyngealized glottal stops (21). The latter interpretation is suggested by Colarusso(1988) given the pervasive secondary pharyngealization in many of the languages whichare reported to have 'strong' glottal stop. In the Semitic languages dealt with here there isno segmental phonemic contrast between upper and lower/glottal pharyngeals and nosystemic contrast between plain and laryngealized segments, although there is of coursethe phonological spread of emphasis which is reported to affect /?/ in several dialects,producing [7]. No study that I have been able to review relates the occurrence of phoneticglottal effects on pharyngeals with the spread of emphasis onto /?/—in other words,descriptions of [7] do not indicate similarity with versions of [1] that have a laryngealcomponent. Articulatory descriptions of pharyngeals in Semitic and in Interior Salishindicate a fairly broad range of possibilities within the confines of pharynx. Semiticpharyngeals nonetheless maintain a phonological affiliation with 17, h/ which is lacking inInterior Salish. This is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 6. The precise nature ofCaucasian pharyngeal articulation remains something of an issue given conflictingreports on Kabardian (Choi 1990) and Ubykh (Colarusso 1988) with respect to voweleffects.Glottals in the languages dealt with here are described as laryngeal gestures withlittle or no affect on adjacent vowels, contrary to both uvulars and pharyngeals.116Whatever the phonetic distinctions in post-velar articulation in Salish, Semitic andCaucasian, a very striking fact is the presence of 'pharyngealized' consonants in all threelanguage groups. The primary acoustic effect of Arabic emphatics seems to be backingof targetted vowels, although lowering is also a factor. In must be borne in mind thatsince the primary emphatics (the Wtbaq consonants) are all coronals, we would not expectthe same extent of Fl raising that is found with uvular and pharyngeal articulation.The situation is not clear concerning the effects of Caucasian pharyngealizedconsonants. One study (Kingston and Nichols 1986) reports Fl raising, whereasColarusso (1988) reports a relatively low Fl and comments on the impression of vowel-raising and slight fronting from pharyngeals and on the pharyngealized vowels reportedfor Tsakhur. On the other hand the data in Catford (1983), plotted in Figure 4.6, showpharyngealized vowels in Udi are clearly centralized in comparison to their non-pharyngealized counterparts. The same is true for the Tsalchur data in Catford (1983).What is being called fronting seems only to apply to back vowels. It is not clear how thegesture which accomplishes CC is related to other pharyngeal gestures in the Caucasianlanguages.Interior Salish retracted coronals are impressionistically recorded as lowering anddarkening vowel quality. It will be shown in Chapter 5 that retracted coronals inNxa'amxcin result in lowered vowel quality, but not as low as that found in theenvironment of uvulars and pharyngeals.117Chapter Five: Interior Salish Phonetics5.0 From acoustics to place of articulationThis chapter turns to an acoustic study of consonantal place of articulation inMoses-Columbia Salish (Nxa'amxcin). The aim of the study is to achieve a reasonableestimate of place of articulation for all the Moses-Columbian consonants, but particularlythe post-velars in the inventory.The investigation itself is divided into two parts, the first of which is presented inSection 5.2, the second in Section 5.3 of this chapter. The first part of the studyestablishes estimates of place of articulation for the Moses-Columbian post-velars throughthe examination of co-articulatory effects on preceding stressed vowels from consonants atall places of articulation in the language's inventory. The resulting data enable (i) acharacterization of the nature and extent of -VC- co-articulation from every consonantalplace (bilabial, coronal, velar, uvular, pharyngeal, glottal) and (ii) a comparison of theeffects of pre-uvular articulation with post-velar articulation as has been done with theArabic data discussed previously. The second part of the study compares pharyngealarticulation across the various Interior Salish languages and evaluates their acousticproperties by comparison to what is known about Arabic pharyngeals. Results of bothparts indicate that Interior Salish uvulars and pharyngeals (i) display the acoustic propertiespredicted by a post-velar constriction site and (ii) pharyngeals on average condition higherFl effects on preceding vowels than do uvulars. Further, glottal stop is shown toparticipate in two effects. It can be transparent to coarticulatory effects from followingconsonants in the configuration -V?C- , or else it manifests itself as varying degrees ofphonetic creak on the preceding vowel, without affecting vowel quality in any observableway.Studies of speech sound acoustics such as the one undertaken here are relevant tospeech production in so far as one can establish a relationship between acoustic events and118articulatory events, thereby enabling an interpretation of acoustic phenomena in articulatoryterms. Section 5.1 makes explicit the general guidelines for the translation of acousticevents into their articulatory counterparts.5.1 The acoustic theory of speech productionThe natural resonances of a uniform tube open at one end are in a 1:3:5 ratio.Assuming that the human vocal tract can be likened to a tube open at one end, and given thedimensions of the average male vocal tract (17cm in length) these ratios convert toresonances at 500Hz, 1500 Hz, 2500Hz respectively by the following formula (Chiba andKajiyama 1941, Fant 1960).1(1) Resonance frequencyn = (2n-1) c / 4 (vocal tract length)c= speed of sound (343 metres/second)Applied to the dimensions of the female vocal tract (15 cm in length) the resultant resonantfrequencies are 572 Hz, 1716 Hz and 2858 Hz.2 Largely as a consequence of the differentdimensions of male and female vocal tracts, the formant frequencies of women's speechtend to be 18-20% higher than those found in men's speech (Fant 1960, Nordstrom1977).3 These general differences in the predicted formant values of female and male vocaltracts must be born in mind when evaluating formant readings and will be of somerelevance in the comparision of Interior Salish data with Arabic.To illustrate the relevant aspects of the acoustic theory of speech production, in'See Chiba and Kajiyama (1941) and Fant (1960) for a detailed explication of the physics behind theacoustic theory of speech production. These three authors are the original references on the topic.2Female and male vocal tracts also differ in terms of mouth cavity dimensions and pharynx length as wellas the size and length of the vocal cords (Chiba and Kajiyama 1941, Fant 1966, Nordstom 1977, Ohala1983).3Nordstom (1977) shows that there is more to the discrepancy between female and male formant values thanphysiology since there is a residue of variation unaccounted for by what is known about the anatomicaldifferences between female and male vocal tracts. Nordstrom (1977) suggests that social, cultural andperceptual factors may motivate manipulation of the vocal tract to exaggerate or enhance physiologicallydetermined differentiation.119Figure 5.9 places of articulation in the human vocal tract are transferred onto threerepresentations of the vocal tract as a tube open at one end. Within the tubes arerepresentations of the amplitude envelope for the volume velocity waves of the first, secondand third resonances respectively, assuming a resonator closed at one end (the glottis): one-quarter of the wavelength of the first resonance fits into the tube (labelled Fl, the topmosttube), 3/4 of the wavelength of the second resonance (labelled F2, the middle tube) and 5/4of the wavelength of the third resonance (labelled F3, the bottom tube). There is a velocitymaximum (or antinode) for all resonances at the lips, and a velocity minimum (or node) forall resonances at the glottis. In Figure 5.9 velocity antinodes correspond to the highestamplitude portion of the resonance waveform. Velocity nodes correspond to the lowestamplitude portion. Assuming a 17cm vocal tract there is an additional velocity antinode forthe second resonance 5.67 cm from the glottis, and a velocity node 11.33 cm from theglottis. For the third resonance there are velocity antinodes at 3.4 cm and 10.2 cm from theglottis (and at the lips, of course, as for all resonances). Velocity nodes for F3 are 6.8 cmand 13.6 cm from the glottis as well as at the glottis. Constriction at a velocity antinodelowers the frequency of the standing wave, whereas expansion at the same velocityantinode raises the resonance frequency. The converse is true for constriction andexpansion at velocity nodes (Chiba and Kajiyama 1941, Fant 1960, Ohala 1990).120F3FzPAL PHARVEL^uv IFigure 5.9: Vocal tract and first three resonances (adapted from Giannini and Pettorino(1982).Using the principles outlined above and armed with formant values one can derive areasonable estimate of place of articulation for a given segment without the intrusion ofphysical investigation of the vocal tract during articulation. For example, a rule of thumbfor conversion between formant values and articulation is that constriction in the frontregion of the vocal tract (hence near a velocity antinode for all three resonances) leads to121low Fl values. Conversely, constrictions nearer the glottis result in higher Fl values sinceconstriction is now nearer a velocity node. By the same token, F2 is high in the case ofpalatal constriction since the articulation is closer to the velocity node for the secondresonance of the tube than it is to a velocity antinode. Thus, for instance, the /i/-vowel ofmany varieties of English, since it is articulated with a constriction fairly forward in thevocal tract, has low Fl and high F2. A high back unrounded vowel will have a slightlyhigher Fl as the constriction moves away from the front palatal region and a significantlylower F2 since the constriction is virtually at the velocity node for the second resonance ofthe vocal tract. Rounding, depending on the gesture involved, can lengthen the vocal tractby lip protrusion and narrow the lip orifice. Both components of labialization lower allresonances (Fain 1968, Lindblom and Sundberg 1971). As a further example, consider themaximally high Fl of pharyngeals. There are two things one might do to raise Fl from itsstanding wave frequency of 500 Hz. One is to maximize expansion at F1's velocityantinode (the lips), and the other is to constrict at F1's velocity node, near the glottis.Pharyngeal articulation does both of course, the jaw lowers, the vocal tract opens like ahorn and the tongue backs into the pharynx.While it is traditionally assumed that Fl is correlated with phonological featuresreflecting tongue height, this is a simplistic and not entirely accurate translation betweenacoustics and tongue configuration. The role of mandibular movement in conditioning Flvalues is made clear in Lindblom and Sundberg (1971), who demonstrate the correlationbetween jaw lowering and rising Fl values given a constant tongue position. As such,mandibular movement plays a role in determining the relative openness of the vocal tract,which in turn is reflected in Fl values. Lindblom and Sundberg's articulatory modellingalso shows the extreme sensitivity of F2 to the position (and shape) of the tongue body inthe mouth. F2 lowers dramatically as the tongue body moves towards the pharynx. F2also tends to be affected by the degree of constriction. In the case of palatal constriction,F2 rises as the constricton narrows, for velar and pharyngeal constriction F2 lowers as the122constriction narrows.Finally, I note that the translation from acoustics to articulation is not always one-to-one (Stevens and House 1955, Atal et al. 1978) and should be accompanied withdescriptive and instrumental articulatory data. The ideal case is for acoustic studies to becomplemented with X-ray or electromagnetic resonance data. At present this kind ofinformation simply is not available for the Interior Salish data examined here.5.2 Moses-Columbian (Nxa?amxcin): A case-study in post-velar articulationTo assess the place of articulation of Interior Salish post-velars I concentrate on dataelicited from four speakers of Moses-Columbian. This is done for several reasons: (i)Moses-Columbian pharyngeals are the easiest to identify within Interior Salish. Becausethey are the most fortis4 of the Interior Salish pharyngeals, segmentation procedures areslightly less problematic and co-articulatory effects can be documented more accurately.(ii) Moses-Columbian has the fullest inventory of pharyngeals found in Interior Salish, viz/c, V, Cw, V w, h, hw/. The other Interior Salish languages do not have the phonemicvoiceless pharyngeals found in Moses-Columbian.5 Since Arabic has both /S,h/,examining the Moses-Columbian inventory enables one to place both voiced and voicelessInterior Salish pharyngeals within a cross-linguistic context. (iii) I was able to gather datafrom three speakers of Moses-Columbian (MM, AB, ED) with a fourth (JM) added fromM.D. I(inkade's recordings. By considering four speakers one can be reasonably sure thatconsistencies across speakers reflect effects specific to the language rather than individualspeakers.While data from all four speakers were analysed, for purposes of illustration in thetext data from a single speaker (MM) are presented. In general, the data presented arerepresentative of coarticulatory effects that are consistent across all four speakers, but there41 use the term 'fortis' loosely here. Nxa'amxcin pharyngeals are less readily confused with vowels (unlessin the context [-aTa-]) than in the other languages.5/1,w/ occurs in only one morpheme in Moses-Columbian. Furthermore, it may be that Okanagan hassome rare occurrences of /11/ (Tony Mattina, personal communication, 1992).123is some variation, particularly in the influence of uvulars (section 5.2.6). Preliminaryinvestigation of data from speakers of other Interior Salish languages (Colville-Okanagan,Coeur d'Alene, Shuswap, Nielkepmxcin) indicate that the findings presented here arereasonably representative of co-articulatory effects found throughout Interior Salish, butfurther comparative study is an obvious need.5.2.1 MethodsAll data collected and analysed here are actual phonological words in the givenlanguage, elicited in citation form with each token repeated twice. In most cases therecordings were made with a Marantz 430 cassette recorder, an AKG D320B uni-directional microphone and metal cassette tapes. Some early recordings were made with aUher 4000 Report 1C and Ampex 631 1/4 inch polyester tape. Most recordings were madein the field, but with considerable care to ensure a quiet environment with no appliancesrunning. To this end I have even waited for refrigerators to cut out and have re-recordeditems if outside noise interferes. A considerable portion of the Moses-Columbian databaseand some Niakapmxcin were recorded in a sound booth and so is of optimal quality. In alllanguages where I was able to record several speakers, the same lexical items wererecorded if possible.Recorded data were digitized at 10 or 12 kHz and analyzed with the waves+program on a Sun or Sparc workstation at the University of Pennsylvania. Some analysiswas done using MacSpeech Lab II at the University of British Columbia. All data analysedwith waves+ were formant-tracked, with the output hand-corrected if necessary.Correction is necessary when formant tracks clearly do not coincide with the placement offormants in the spectrographic display. Such mis-matches are by no means dominant in thedata, but it tended to be a factor with speakers with a relatively high fundamental frequency(typically female), or with speakers whose source characteristics include a high-amplitudefirst harmonic. Such voice-quality characteristics tend to confuse accurate identification of124Fl in particular. As is well-known but little discussed in the literature on spectrography,the wider-spaced harmonics of a voice with a high fundamental simply provide feweropportunities for the instantiation of well-resolved formant structure and so can complicatethe proper identification of all formants. Whenever formant mis-matches arose in the data,both FFT and LPC spectra as well as narrow-band spectrograms were generated to aid inmore accurate identification of formant structure. Formant-tracks can be re-drawn on thebasis of such information and corrected values read into the data-files.The analysis of data from all speakers in all languages focusses on stressed vowelsleft-adjacent to the consonant under investigation. This is because coarticulatory effects inInterior Salish tend to be strongest on vowels preceding a given consonant and withoutstress Interior Salish vowels tend either to delete or reduce to schwa. Two measurementswere taken of each vowel, the first one at the midpoint (defined as the local maximum ofFl, or else of F2 if Fl is steady; if both formants are in transition, the temporal midpointwas taken) and the second one at vowel offset.While the inventory of velars, uvulars and pharyngeals in Moses-Columbiancontains rounded phonemes, I have excluded these from consideration wherever possibleso as to avoid confusing the effects of rounding with the effects of primary place.However, there are some cases, due to shortage of data, where I was obliged to measurevowels in the context of rounded consonants. Where this occurs, it is noted in the text.Table 5.25 outlines the entire Interior Salish database on which the acoustic analysispresented in this dissertation was undertaken, as well as speakers whose data has beentranscribed impressionistically but has not been systematically investigatedspectrographically. Information relevant to the Moses-Columbian place of articulationstudy presented in section 5.2 is given in the first five rows of the table.125Table 5.25: Interior Salish DatabaseII Speaker (Sex) 1 Age 0 Recorded by II Language I^Total V's II Stressed V's IMM (F) 60's NJB Moses-Columbian239 117ED (F) 70's NJB Moses-Columbian506 280AB (F) 60's NJB Moses-Columbian485 266JM (M) 60's MDK Moses-Columbian250 116Total vowels in Moses-Columbian database 1480 0^779^IOther ISLanguages indatabasePF (F) 60's NJB Spokane 133 96MS (F) 60's BC Spokane Pharyngeals onlyAS (M) 60's BC Ch-Kalispel Pharyngeals242onlyI^166CQ (M) 70's NJB Co-OkLC (F) 60's NJB Co-Ok only impressionistic dataavailableLN (M) 70's NJB Coeur d'A 428 I^222BL (F), MSt(F) 60's NJB Coeur d'A only impressionistic dataavailableDS (M) 60's NJB Nte?kepmx 275^I 202JT (M),NJ (F),MJ (F)40's;40's;60'sNJB Nfe2kepmx only impressionistic dataavailableBD (M) 60's NJB Shuswap 181^I 137Total analysed vowels in IS database 2739^1^1602^I5.2.2 Moses-Columbian: an overview(2) presents the Moses-Columbian consonantal inventory for reference purposes.Phonemic vowels are /i, a, u, a/.126(2) Moses-Columbian (Moses-Columbia Salish: Kinkade 1981)Lab Coronal^C^Velarp^t^c (tf)^(ts) k kwp'^c'^(tf')^k' k'wS x xwnrl y^1^wm'^n' r'^y'^1'^w'Uvularq qwq coyX XwPhar^Glottalh hwççwC'wAs noted above, the major effects illustrated here are fairly consistent across all fourMoses-Columbian speakers and can be considered representative of co-articulatory effectsin the language. Further, both impressionistic and acoustic examination of data fromspeakers of other Interior Salish languages suggest that the general findings presented herefor Moses-Columbian can be extrapolated to Interior Salish in general, although furtherwork is required to gauge the full extent of speaker- and language-specific variation.Spectrograms illustrating place-of-articulation effects for some of the other languages in thedatabase can be found in Appendix B. Table 5.26 summarizes the formant values plottedin the following figures for speaker MM and for comparison, summarizes formant valuesfor the same contexts from JM, who is MM's father, recorded by M.D. Kinkade in 1966.Gaps in the table indicate lack of information.In brief, the results of this investigation are that pre-uvulars (labials, coronals andvelars) distinguish themselves from post-velars (uvulars and pharyngeals) by raisingvowels in formant space. Furthermore, velars and labials tend to back vowels, coronalstend to front them. Uvulars and pharyngeals pattern together in lowering all vowels.Pharyngeals lower vowels more than uvulars do. Glottals neither lower nor raise vowelquality.127Table 5.26: Summary of Moses-Columbian articulatory effects: MM and JMI Speaker: M.Marchand (MM) J. Miller (TM)^)Vowel II Nucleus^I Offset Nucleus^I OffsetBilabialsFl F2 Fl F2 Fl F2 Fl F2i 285 2049 245u 528 1212 424 1164a 585 1422 579 1411a 497 1257 511 1074Coronalsi 427 2245 374 2281 420 1939 347 2059u 435 1271 346 1240 429 1126 406 1238a 708 1797 541 1966 587 1501 540 1532a 569 1490 478 1667 475^1654^454^1556Retracted coronalsi 499 2170 397 2319 418 1865 428 1814I; 605 1081 457 1229 652 703a 869 1500 737 1641 765 1360 777 1341q 639 1470 550 1350 568 1280 547 1353Velarsi 416 2170 319 1710 357 2100 367 2143u 609 1284 431 905 445 1318 418 1016a 708 1723 569 1693 618 1468 592 1779a 514 1486 381 1292 479 1785 472 1763Uvularsi 585 2088 633 1950 470 1807 502 1760u 681 1288 572 1119 415 1213 499 1080a 862 1721 835 1669 661 1400 681 1393a^__ 713 1594^_ 735 1616 673 1468 647 1453Pharyngeals (Nw,tiw/ not excluded: see Table 5.27)i 613 1979 601 1618Ua 899 1729 817 1449 722 1301 832 1325a 743 1586 800 1569 663 1498 652 1519Glottalsi 317 2473 355 2527 387 2059 377 2008u 506 996 371 984 428 1091 377 1254a 815 1681 789 1668 555 1539 571 1519aTo illustrate the coarticulatory effects from which place of articulation can beestimated, a series of Fl vs F2 plots of the measurements from Moses-Columbian speakerMM are presented: Figure 5.10 plots all vowels in speaker MM's database, Figure 5.11plots all the stressed vowels and Figures 5.12 to 5.17 deconstruct the Moses-Columbian128vowel space according to place of articulation of following consonant, starting from thecoronals in the inventory and ending with glottals. Bilabial effects are illustrated at the endof the section because there were insufficient data to plot their effects on all vowels. Theplots which follow should be interpreted in the context of the acoustic theory of speechproduction, as discussed in section 5.1. That is to say, the phonological front-backdimension can be viewed as reflected in F2 values, with a high F2 corresponding to aforward articulation. The degree of openness of the vocal tract is reflected in Fl values,with high Fl values indicating an unconstricted, open vocal tract configuration.129Figure 5.10 plots the midpoint values of all vowels, stressed and unstressed, in thedatabase for speaker MM. This will give some idea of the total vowel space for thisspeaker. It is a remarkably triangular system in the sense that /i/, /u/ and /a/ define the threeFl ,F2 extremes of the data in a classic way. The schwa vowel is transcribed as 'E' inthese figures. Moses-Columbian also has a set of retracted vowels, occurring in a smallsubset of roots and cognate with other Interior Salish roots which have lost a historicpharyngeal. The vowels in these roots are transcribed /e,A,o,V/ in this figure, althoughusually they are represented as 49 III Q/. The phonological status of these vowels isdiscussed in Chapter 6.0cJ130_1.0(90o—ie E^E^E^E u uEe .e^ EEE uuue E^Ve i E Ei u uouI V Eti fa EA EA 21 iva^ua^ AAaVEE VE a Et E g „^0 E^2E u^F ^09 °i^lii^E g-^v EjE E E • E^131-o.a-a lifi %a_ z oaa4?^ EA Ea a^aEa a E a^VA4^uE6asa a aA^AE^.aa Aa aaaefa AAaEAA AAAVV-3000^-2500^-2000^-1500^-1000F2(Hz)Spkr:MMFigure 5.10: Moses-Columbian vowels at all places of articulation, stressed and unstressedAs mentioned, Interior Salish vowels tend to delete or reduce in quality unlessstressed, although the different languages vary somewhat as to which option they take. Toeliminate stress shift as a condition for alternation in vowel quality, the core of my analysisis confined to stressed vowels. Figure 5.11 plots the midpoint values of MM's stressedvowels.E u uEE00 _0 _o —700CV —7-3000^-2500^-2000^-1500^-1000F2(Hz)Spkr:MMFigure 5.11: Moses-Columbian Stressed VowelsThe most obvious consequence of eliminating unstressed vowels is to clear out thecentral portion of the vowel space, indicating that stress loss in Moses-Columbian results incentralization. This figure also illustrates the considerable allophonic variation in vowelquality which is characteristic of all the speakers I have examined. For example, Fl valuesrange from 400 Hz to 700 Hz for the front vowel IV, while F2 values range from 2000 Hzto 2500 Hz for the same vowel. In some languages (such as English) this range wouldencompass several phonemic vowel qualities, but in Moses-Columbian the variation is131e .ele^Ii'Gii^ ui^E^V 0 E^00^0,i 'ii^E^Vv v^BJEE u^000i E, E E Eu. a oa oaa a aE A^ua fa aaE IA EE Aa Eak^uE^asAAaala A A1,-^AAE^EE80-3000^-2500^-2000^-1500^-1000predictable based on place of articulation of following consonants. This pervasivecoarticulation is also documented for many Caucasian languages with similar inventories interms of consonants at most places of articulation between the lips and the glottis and aminimal vowel inventory (Kuipers 1963, Colarusso 1988, Choi 1990) as is noted inChapter 4.5.2.3 Stressed vowels before coronals 7Figure 5.12 shows vowel quality in the environment of non-retracted coronals,averaging the midpoint and offset values. This gives an extremely simplified, two-pointformant trajectory, illustrating the direction and extent of formant transitions from itsmidpoint to offset. All vowels preceding non-retracted coronals raise somewhat in formantspace, with /a/ raising most and the /i/ vowel minimally affected. Both of these effects areto be expected given the low, back constriction site for /a/ and the high front constrictionsite for /i/.F2(Hz)Spkr:MMFigure 5.12: Moses-Columbian Vowels before Coronals5.2 4 Stressed vowels before retracted coronals /s, c, 1, 17Figure 5.13 plots the same data for vowels before the retracted coronal series.132A8 _00Comparison of Figure 5.12 with 5.13 shows that retracted vowels are somewhat loweredin vowel space compared to non-retracted ones, especially /A/, and that retracted vowelsraise somewhat at offset, presumably in response to the coronal component of thefollowing consonant. In every case midpoint values for these retracted vowels are lowerthan their non-retracted counterparts.-3000^-2500^-2000^-1500^-1000F2(Hz)Spkr:MMFigure 5.13: Moses-Columbian Vowels before Retracted CoronaIs133i-2000F2(Hz)Spkr:MM30005.2.5 Stressed vowels before velars 1k, le,x/Turning to velars, the effects found here are entirely consistent with a high, backarticulation. Figure 5.14 shows how each vowel is raised and backed in formant space. /a/is least affected in the F2 (i.e. front-back) dimension.Figure 5.14: Moses-Columbian Vowels before Velars1348X-00NI;.a5.2.6 Stressed vowels before uvulars /q,q1,x/Figure 5.15 shows the effect of uvular consonants on vowels. Comparing theposition of midpoint and offset values of vowels before coronals and velars with thosebefore uvulars, it is clear that a consistent consequence of uvular articulation is that of Flraising. For example, to take velar (Figure 5.14) as opposed to uvular articulation (Figure5.15), there are several indications of the lowering effect of uvular articulation. First, atmidpoint, vowels before uvulars have higher Fl values than their -VK- counterparts. Thisis true for all vowel qualities. Second, Fl values at offset remain high for all vowelqualities. Third, in all cases the nucleus and offset Fl values of vowels before uvulars ishigher than either the onset or offset Fl value of vowels before velars. The same array offacts hold for a comparison between uvular and coronal effects.-3000^-2500^-2900^-1500^-1000F2(Hz)Spkr MMFigure 5.15: Moses-Columbian Vowels before UvularsF2 effects from uvulars are most pronounced on the /i/ vowel, where F2 lowers by138 Hz. This is /a/ hardly shifts at all on the F2 dimension, and schwa moves forward alittle bit. The /u/ vowel here shows a high Fl and low F2 at the midpoint, but Fl and F2lowering at its offset. This is because the vowels in the forms analysed here are followedby a rounded uvular. The rounding then has the effect of lowering Fl and F2 at the135vowel's offset and thereby counteracting the effect of pure uvular articulation.Considering the raw formant values for vowels in the context of uvulars for bothJM and MM, it can be seen that JM's values are in all cases not as high as those recordedfor MM (Table 5.26). This is to be expected given the difference in female and male vocaltract dimensions, as already discussed. These differences must be born in mind, sinceMM's values for uvular articulation as given in Table 5.26 are high compared with thosenoted in Tables 4:18 and 4:19 for Arabic uvulars. At face value this would indicate that theColumbian uvulars are articulated with a constriction further back in the vocal tract than theSemitic ones. However, JM's data are closer to those recorded for Arabic uvulars, whichis to be expected insofar as the Arabic studies analyse male speech. Furthermore, datafrom two other (female) speakers of Moses-Columbian (AB and ED) suggest that there issome genuine variability in uvular articulation not related to the known artifacts of speakersex. Uvular data from both AB and ED show greater F2 lowering than Fl raising in thecontext of uvulars and in this respect are very similar to their Arabic conterparts, for whichnoticeable F2 effects are often reported.There is also some evidence that variation in uvular articulation is common acrossInterior Salish. Data from Colville (CQ) show a similar profile to that found for Moses-Columbian as spoken by AB and ED, that is to say, greater F2 lowering than Fl raising(see Appendix B). These mixed results suggest that uvular articulation in Interior Salishmay be accompanied by variable decrease in pharyngeal volume either because thearticulation is sometimes made at the extreme end of the soft palate, or because there isaccompanying general pharyngeal constriction. This in turn might be understood toindicate that Salish uvulars sometimes have a 'pharyngealized' variant. However, it wasnoted in section 4.3.2.5 that Caucasian /cir/ is perceived as raising vowels, that is to say,lowering Fl (Colarusso 1988). This does not appear to be the case with the Salish dataexamined here, where there is unambiguous Fl raising for uvulars in data from MM andJM, although less so in data from ED and AB. A more detailed understanding of variation136in Interior Salish uvular articulation and a close comparison of the Salish data withCaucasian material is obviously desirable, but will have to await further research.6 Fornow I note that the phonetic variation in Salish uvular articulation reflects the production ofvery back as well as slightly less back articulations.For the most part the acoustic results reported here confirm the impressionisticallyderived observation prevalent in studies of Interior Salish that vowels before uvulars lowerin quality compared to a pre-uvular articulation (see Table 5 for a summary of theseobservations). These results are also in line with the predictions made by acousticmodelling studies, in which post-velar articulation is cued by relatively high Fl values(Klatt and Stevens 1969, Alwan 1985).13760ne problem in carrying out such research is the real paucity of data on those Caucasian languages withpharyngealized uvulars.5.2.7 Stressed vowels before pharyngeals /C,C',Sw,C'w,h,hw/Figure 5.16 shows the effect of pharyngeal articulation on /i,a/ and /a/, collapsingthe effects of both rounded and unrounded pharyngeals. There are no cases of /u/ beforepharyngeals in the database. Compared to pre-uvular consonantal effects, all vowelsbefore pharyngeals lower dramatically. All tokens of the /i/ vowel represented here arefollowed by /?w/, the effect of which is to lower and back the vowel considerably.Rounding effects can be seen most dramatically on /a/ in the environment of the voicedrounded pharyngeal, where a very low value is recorded at midpoint, but a higher andbacker value is found at offset, thereby obscuring the full extent of lowering.F2(Hz)Spkr:MMFigure 5.16: Moses-Columbian Vowels before PharyngealsIn order to separate the effects of rounding and voicing of pharyngeals, Table 5.27gives formant values for vowels in the various pharyngeal environments. Gaps in the tableindicate gaps in the database for this speaker. As has been mentioned, the effect ofrounding is to lower formant frequencies as a consequence of constriction at a velocitymaximum (the mouth) for all three formants. This can be seen clearly for Nw/ as well as/hw/• The form recorded here, [26hwa?] 'cough, have a cold' is the only morpheme in the138language in which itiw/ occurs so I have given formant values for both examples of thisform. The high offset Fl reading for the second token (1053 Hz) suggests that rounding isnot affecting Fl at the point the reading was taken in this token. Kinkade (1967) reportsthat the stressed vowel in this form is fronted and fully rounded in anticipation of thefollowing ihw/.The F2 values recorded on /a/ and /a-vowels before unrounded pharyngeals are inthe range of those found for MM at the offset of /a/ when followed by a coronal, whichwould account for the impression of a non-backed vowel, but Fl values are much higherthan those found with V-coronal sequences. The combination of relatively high F2 andhigh Fl gives the effect of low, relatively front vowel.Table 5.27: Plain, rounded, voiced and voiceless pharyngeal effects (MM: Moses-ColumbianNucleus Offset Nucleus OffsetFl^1 F2 Fl^1 F2 F!^1F2 Fl^1 F2Vowel -T -Swi 613 1979 601 1618Ua 952 1718 714 1437a 955 1690 924 1633 576 1375 592 1275-h _hwia 789 1778 812 '1876a 937 1767 898 1804 734, 731154915517541053152517051395.2.8 Stressed vowels before glottalsFinally, Figure 5.17 plots vowel quality in the environment of glottal stop. Thedatabase does not contain examples of -V!h- sequences, but they are not reported to havean effect any different from /?/, although of course they will not make a preceding vowelcreaky.813000^-2500^-2000^-1500^-1000F2(Hz)Spkr:MMFigure 5.17: Moses-Columbian Vowels before GlottalsAs can be seen, coarticulatory effects from glottals are minimal. Vowels followed byglottal stop commonly show one of two effects. Sometimes there is minimal formantmovement, as on the /i/ vowels plotted here, and the vowel is simply creaky. Frequentlyhowever, the glottal stop is transparent to coarticulatory effects on the vowel from theconsonant following it (-WC). In such cases the vowel preceding /?/ is affected as if theglottal were not there. This effect can be seen in Figure 5.17 on the /u/ vowel, which in thetokens plotted here is followed by a coronal and shows therefore a raising and slightfronting effect. There are many cases of both transparency and creak on preceding vowelsin the total Interior Salish database, and there are cases which combine such effects. Toillustrate glottal transparency, Figure 5.18 shows the effect of uvular articulation on animmediately preceding [i] vowel in the form [ciqn] 'digging'. This can be compared to the1406000500040003000200010000.0^ C.^ 0.3^ r.4mm29.dFigure 5.18: Uvular effects: ciqn 'digging' (Moses-Columbian:MM)0.6form [kn pq?q] 'I'm cooked, done' in Figure 5.19, where the intervening glottal stoppermits the uvular to affect the offset of the [i] vowel in a similar way. Both tokens arefrom MM, the same speaker whose data have been plotted all along.1416000um210.dFigure 5.19: Glottal transparency: kn p'i2q 'I'm cooked, burnt' (Moses-Columbian:MM)In no context does /2/ lower a preceding vowel. Vowels are sometimes reportedwith more lax allophones before glottals, but never with the full lowering effect of uvularsand pharyngeals. Of course, glottals do not raise vowels in the way that pre-uvulararticulation can either. Given that co-articulation is cleary the norm in Interior Salish,glottals are unique in not imposing a co-articulatory effect on preceding vowels. It must benoted however that there are no cases of [a/2], but only of [all]. It would appear that thecontrast between /a/ and /a/ is neutralized in this environment.5.2.9 Bilabials and SummaryUnfortunately, the database for MM contains no tokens of bilabial /p, p'/ right-adjacent to a stressed vowel. There are a number of examples of /-Vm/, but it is difficult toabstract the effect of nasal resonances and anti-resonances from the waveform so as to14200 0.3^0.4^0.5^0.640a .d0.1^0.260005000400030002000100000013954—6977--6977isolate reliably the effect of labial closure. However, Figure 5.20 shows an example ofMoses-Columbian bilabials having the expected effect of lowering all formants, given thatclosure takes place at a velocity maximum for all resonances of the vocal tract. Thisparticular example (from speaker ED) is all the more striking since the /p/ occurs after /17with its characteristically high Fl. At midpoint of the vowel-pharyngeal sequence Fl is885 Hz, F2 1807 Hz, F3 2654 Hz. At offset the values are Fl 687 Hz, F2 1657 Hz. F3has disappeared. This form also shows the glottal effects discussed above. While the rootis phonologically 4yaT', the glottalized pharyngeal is realized as creaky offset, possiblyfollowed by Pt In either case, the glottal aspect of /C7 is clearly transparent to formanttransitions triggered by the following /p/.Figure 5.20: Moses-Columbian labial effects: yaVp(qin) 'many, lots': Speaker: EDThis investigation of Moses-Columbian has shown that consonants at every placeof articulation trigger coarticulatory effects reflecting the place of articulation of theconsonant itself. The exception is the class of glottals, which render preceding vowels143creaky and do not themselves affect preceding vowel quality, although they may betransparent to effects from following consonants. Bilabial, coronals and velars patterntogether in conditioning relatively low Fl values on left-adjacent stressed vowels.Uvular's, pharyngeals and retracted alveolars pattern together in that these and only thesesegments are preceded by vowels which are consistently higher in Fl (and hence lower inquality) than those found in other consonantal environments. The main acousticmanifestation of this is raising of the first formant although there are clear F2 effects also.Both effects can be linked with reduced pharyngeal cavity volume.Table 5.28 collects the averaged values at offset for vowels at each place ofarticulation. In effect it is a summary of Tables 5.26 and 5.27. The values recorded in thistable for pharyngeals are those found in the environment of unrounded pharyngeals,specifically in the context of/-h/ for the a-vowel, and of /-S/ for the a-vowel. Full details ofpharyngeal values are given in Table 5.27. There are no examples of /i/-pharyngealsequences. This is because there were no cases of stressed /i/ before a pharyngeal in MM'sdatabase. There are /i/-pharyngeal sequences in the database for several other Moses-Columbian speakers though. For example, [kihana2] 'teenage girl' (Figure 5.48) shows anFl reading of approximately 800Hz at the vowel-pharyngeal boundary. F2 is in the 2400Hz region, having lowered from 2800 Hz. The Fl value here is higher than the reading fori/-uvulars given in Table 5.28, reflecting a more open vocal tract configuration.Uvular and pharyngeal effects are obviously distinct for /a/ and /3/: Fl is lower inthe environment of urffounded pharyngeals than it is in the environment of unroundeduvulars. F2 values are roughly comparable for the /a/-vowel, but /a/ before pharyngealshas a higher F2 than before uvulars. This would make it more front. Further confirmationof the observation that pharyngeal articulation conditions a higher Fl than uvulararticulation is presented at the end of section 5.3.2.6 where the spectral attributes of// andN are contrasted.Glottals do not lower /V or /u/ in any way. The values found here are comparable to144those found in pre-uvular environments. The /a/ vowel is extremely interesting. It has anaverage Fl of 789 Hz before glottal stop, 924 Hz before pharyngeals and 835 Hz beforeuvulars. a/-7 is thus not as low as before uvulars or pharyngeals, but it is lower than beforepre-velars. This is consistent with the hypothesis that pre-velars tend to raise precedingvowels, post-velars lower, and glottals have little to no effect since they do not have asupralaryngeal gesture other than lack of constriction to impose on the preceding vowel.As a consequence, they neither lower nor raise preceding vowels.Table 5.28: Moses-Columbian ilace of articulation effects summarized: offset valuesV Labials^Coronals(JM) ('VelarsL(MM)Uvulars(MM)Pharyngeals(MM)GlottalsOMI^Fl F2 IJ Fl F2 Fl F2 Fl F2 Fl F2 Fl F2i 245 374 2281 319 1710 633 1950 355 2527u ' 424 1164 ' 366 1240 319 1710 572 1119 371 984a 579 1411 541 1966 569 1693 835 1669 924 1633 789 1668a 511 _1074 478 1667 381 1292 735 1616 898 18045.3 Pharyngeal ArticulationThis section seeks to clarify the empirical and phonetic issues of Salish pharyngealarticulation namely, whether the relevant segments are indeed pharyngeal in place (they arereported to have a uvular component in some languages), what their manner of articulationis and how they compare to what is known about pharyngeals in other languages, inparticular, Arabic. First, Section 5.3.1 briefly reviews the relevant aspects of Arabicpharyngeals so as to establish points of reference for the Salish data. Then in section 5.3.2the results of spectrographic and waveform analysis of pharyngeals from six of the InteriorSalish languages is presented and compared to the Arabic data. In general the results ofacoustic investigation support Kinkade's (1967) analysis of a set of pharyngealsthroughout Interior Salish and indicate that Salish pharyngeals are very much like theirArabic counterparts in terms of manner and place of articulation.By way of summarizing the results of this investigation of Interior Salishpharyngeals, Table 5.29 collects formant information on all pharyngeals represented145spectrographically in the text. In brief, it is quite clear that high Fl is a consistent cue toSalish pharyngeals as it is with Arabic ones. F2 tends to be quite sensitive to adjacentvowels, as is reported for Arabic also (Alwan 1986). The Fl range in these data are 495Hz to 1052; F2 from 1138 Hz to 2021 Hz. F2 is highest in the context of following /V. Flis lowest in the context of a rounded pharyngeal. It is impossible to say, without thebenefit of X-ray or comparable data, that the Salish pharyngeals have 'the same place ofarticulation' as the Arabic ones. However, of direct relevance in the comparison of Salishwith Arabic is that the range of Fl values documented here for Salish is directly comparableto that found for Arabic (section 4.4.1).Table 5.29: Formant values of Interior Salish pharyngeals examined in textFigure H Language If Speaker If Segment^if Fl (Hz)^if F2 (Hz)^H F3 (Hz)^I21 CEArabic SW #Ca- 964 139321 #Sa- 818 1633 224123 -afi- 882 1595 214024 #ha 1052 1630 275025 Chewelah AS #si- 689 118027 Spokane MS #Si- 695 1434 288728 PF #si- 732 1273 280429 -S# 875 1239 278830 -aT'C'm- 807 1281 290831 Colville CQ #Ti- 712 1462 226432 -f# 826 1469 256933 -Sp 802 1449 246334 Coeur d'Al -LN Via- 658 1246 235135 -cTs- 616 1478 219836 -Ef'wn- 495 1440 164237 Shuswap BD #1i- 678 1419 223938 PTP- 760 1203 237439 #1S'i- 894 1241 230040 NI DS #Si- 727 1429 211341 -aSp# 559 1141 211642 -c# 799 1138 242243 Ms-Cm AB #Swa- 703 1438 187144 -aTa- 1051 1615 244545 -af'S'a- ' 865 1782 247546 #hi- 832 2021 252247 -h# 1034 1706 259348 -iha- 811 2361 282349 -ahwa- 620 1613 23861465.3.1 Arabic pharyngealsThe phonetics of Arabic pharyngeals are discussed in section 4.3.1.2. There areseveral salient details for purposes of the ensuing comparison of Arabic pharyngeals withSalish which I outline here: (i) Arabic pharyngeals are produced with a constricted pharynxalthough descriptions vary on how this is achieved and the exact location of the maximalconstriction; (ii) /5/ is often 'creaky' and/or glottalized on release; further, [2] is sometimesan allophone of IS/; (iii) /5/ is a voiced approximant in Iraqi (Butcher and Ahmad 1987),reported as a spirant in Palestinian (Blanc 1953), as fricative-like in Tunisian (Ghazeli1977), a sonorant in Lebanese (Klatt and Stevens 1969); (iv) /h/ is a voiceless spirant inMoroccan (Harrell 1957) and Palestinian (Blanc 1953) or approximant in Iraqi (Butcherand Ahmad 1987), produced lower than /5/. Some descriptions suggest the constrictionarea is less for fh / than /V. (v) Fl is high for both /5/ and /h/, whereas F2 tends to be low(Butcher and Ahmad 1987, Laufer and Baer 1988, Alwan 1986, Ghazeli 1977).The realization of /1,h/ is more readily appreciated by reference to spectrograms,where the manner of articulation is visually observable. The literature contains a number ofexamples of pharyngeals in various Arabic dialects, as noted in the previous paragraph.Below are several examples of pharyngeal articulation in Colloquial Egyptian Arabic asspoken by a male native speaker in his early thirties (SW). All forms analysed here wereelicited in the same way as the Interior Salish data, that is to say, they are citation forms ofwords existing in the language, with each token repeated twice. Colloquial EgyptianArabic is reported to have emphatic as well as plain pharyngeals (Mitchel 1956, Khalafallah1969, but cf Harrell 1957 who says he cannot tell the difference between emphatic andnon-emphatic uvulars or pharyngeals). The examples below are of non-emphaticpharyngeal articulation so as not to introduce the complication of emphasis into thediscussion.Figure 5.21 is of the word [Sadu] 'enemy'. The uppermost display in this andfollowing figures of this sort, is of course the spectrogram itself. Immediately below the1470.6 070.2^0.3a0.4^0.50 0132006600-66000.0 0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5^0.6^0.7sw112.d0.1 0.2C o1320C660C———-660C-- •3w112.101.g.d1r••spectrogram is the corresponding waveform, on a matching time-scale. The large-scaleexpanded waveform at the bottom of the figure is provided to facilitate closer examinationof the moment of pharyngeal articulation in the token. The expanded waveform is alwaysof the pharyngeal segment in question with as much adjacent material as can be included.The black line beneath the unexpanded waveform indicates the portion which is expandedin the lower display.Figure 5.21. Saciu 'enemy' (Colloquial Egyptian Arabic: SW)The expanded waveform in Figure 5.21 shows this word-initial voiced pharyngealhaving a period of more than 100ms very low amplitude but fairly regularly voiced148initiation, corresponding to low-frequency (1000 Hz and below) energy on thespectrogram. There is no 'burst' portion such as found by Butcher and Ahmad (1987)with some of their Iraqi tokens. Butcher and Ahmad (1987) report an average Fl of 964Hz, F2 of 1467 Hz at the pharyngeal-vowel boundary of the form [Taft For [Ta!du]'enemy' values at the pharyngeal-vowel boundary are Fl 921 Hz, F2 1393 Hz and F3unreliable. There is no appreciable evidence of frication in these or Butcher &Ahmad's(1987) forms. The Egyptian form is thus quite comparable to the Iraqi fonns7.1497With one exception: the duration of the pharyngeals in the two tokens of [cadu] 'enemy provided by SW isamost twice that of the example in Butcher and Ahmad (1987). Too much cannot be made of this differencethough, since there are insufficient data from SW to make reasonable statements about the duration of hispharyngeals.Compared to the waveform (shown here expanded) of the word [?aiwa] 'yes' inFigure 5.22, the peculiar properties of initial [f] are obvious: in the Pad sequence there isno comparable period of low-amplitude wave-form and instead the waveform immediatelyand regularly gains amplitude as it moves from release of the glottal into the vowel. At theglottal stop-vowel boundary of Paiwa] Fl is 818 Hz, F2 1633 Hz. F3 is not visible butthe formant-tracker provides 2241 Hz. Thus, Fl is just over 100 Hz higher and F2 240 Hzlower in [cad as opposed to [2a-]. Note also that there is no formant movement in [?aiwa]until the [a] shifts into [i], at which point Fl lowers and F2 raises. Critically, there is noformant transition at the [2-a] boundary, indicating that the supra-laryngeal vocal tract is in aposition for [a] as it forms and releases the glottal stop.sw83.expandedAFigure 5.22: ?ai(wa) 'yes' (Colloquial Egyptian Arabic: SW)The voiced pharyngeal, when intervocalic as in [sali:d] 'happy', does not have theperiod of low amplitude initiation seen above in Figure 5.21.1500 0^0.1^0.2^, 0.3^0.4^0.5 0.6^0.7^0.8^0.9^1.0^1.1^1.2^1.3^1.4sw24.dVA.^.0.1 0.200Figure 5.23 shows intervocalic [1] to be entirely resonant, although close inspection of theexpanded waveform suggests that the [1] is none the less relatively constricted compared toflanking vowels, having a curiously jagged' waveform at a point corresponding to thetranscription of a pharyngeal. Isolation and playback of this portion of the waveformconfirms that this is indeed the most pharyngeal moment. Finally, this form shows clearraising of F2 and lowering of Fl as the vocal tract moves towards the following [Nvowel.This of course is entirely in line with the documentation of pharyngeals with high Fl andlow F2. Formant values at the point of maximal pharyngeal constriction in this token asjudged from the period of low amplitude waveform are Fl 882 Hz, F2 1595 Hz, F3 2140sw24.expanded.dFigure 5.23: saTal 'happy' (Colloquial Egyptian Arabic: SW)151As a final reference example of pharyngeal articulation, consider Figure 5.24. Thisshows a word-initial voiceless [h] in the form [halal)] 'he milked'. The expandedwaveform in this case is very much like that reported by Butcher and Ahmad (1987)indicating a noisy unvoiced sound with an aperiodic, fricative-like waveform. The higheramplitude portion may indicate the difficulty controlling regular air-flow through theconstriction site for [h], as well as the considerable force with which air is forced throughthe constriction. At the pharyngeal-vowel boundary Fl is 1052 Hz, F2 1630 Hz, F3 2750Hz.00^04^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5^1 0.6^0.7^0.8^0.9^1.0sw94.d1 68423421.**0444#01)****6"1111152I I0.2sw94.exica1ded.d.^t^.0.3 0.4-3421 ---—00Figure 5.24: halab 'he milked' (Colloquial Egyptian Arabic: SW)5.3.2 Interior Salish Pharyngeal ArticulationAs mentioned, the proper identification of what are now termed pharyngeals inInterior Salish historically has been something of a problem. The sounds are often difficultto hear as consonants and descriptions of their place of articulation vary between uvular andpharyngeal, depending on the language. This has been discussed in 4.3.3.2.In order to address the question of what Interior Salish pharyngeals are phoneticallyand how they might vary across the different languages, this section presents the results ofacoustic analysis of samples of pharyngeals from each of the Interior Salish languages.Collection and analysis methods are as documented in Section 5.2.1 of this chapter.5.3.2.1 Kalispel-SpokaneFrom a phonetic point of view, as we shall see, it was not unreasonable for Vogt totranscribe VV in sequences in Kalispel where in other Interior Salish languages apharyngeal-vowel sequence is usually transcribed8. Phonologically, the transcriptionmakes less sense, since pharyngeals pattern as full-blooded consonants in terms of CVC-and -(V)C reduplication throughout IS and behave as consonantal resonants with respect tosvarabhakti vowel insertion and the phonetic manifestation of glottalization. Thephonological behaviour of Interior Salish pharyngeals is discussed fully in Chapter 4.By way of examining the sorts of sounds Vogt (1940) transcribed as double -aa-vowels, Figure 5.25 is a spectrogram of the form [Sieast] 'char' as spoken by AlexSherwood, a Chewelah9 speaker recorded by Barry Carlson in 196910. Although this is aword-initial pharyngeal as in the Colloquial Egyptian Arabic form [Tactu] 'evening' (Figure5.21) there seems to be little indication of extreme constriction at onset. One token for ASshows some initial noise before voicing begins. The one given here shows less but the8Vogt was dealing with a very limited corpus and may not have had forms with pharyngeal reduplication.However, he did know Reichard's Coeur d'Alene material as noted in Section 2.3.3.3.9Carlson (1972:iv-v) notes that Chewelah is 'virtually identical with Kalispel but is considered distinct bythe Indians'.101 thank Barry Carlson for allowing me to analyse data from Alex Sherwood and Margaret Sherwood.153015460005000^-E4000^-F300020001000waveform in all cases transposes very quickly into what sounds like a regular, voiced [a]with Fl 689 and F2 1180, indicating a low, open articulation comparable to the BE /a/ of'father'll."T'"'' "I^''"I"^'^I^'^I^'^I^'^I^'^I^'^I^'^I5^ 1.30.1^0.2 0.3^0.4^0.5^0.6^0.7^0.8^0.9^1.0^1.1^1.2^1.3^4 foo22.d 0.1 0.2 0.3foo22.big.dFigure 5.25: Tiedst 'char' (Chewelah/Kalispel: AS)Figure 5.25 (and 5.27, 5.28) should be compared to Figure 5.26 of the Moses-Columbian word [?ay' kw4st] 'tomorrow'. This form shows an [-ay-] sequence, withoutthe influence of a pharyngeal. The contrast is relevant since the form Mast] 'char' couldbe, and sometimes is, transcribed as [Tayast]. It is not an unreasonable transcription, andlimy own formant values for the BE [A] vowel are Fl 900, F2 1100. Catford (1988:161) cites Fl 750,F2 940 as average values for Cardinal Vowel 5 [A].0 0shows how pharyngeals can give the percept of an [a]-vowel.C C^ C.3^ C.4^ C.5^ C.E^ C.?mrn1Figure 5.26: ?ay' kw4st 'tomorrow' (Moses-Columbian: MM)1556000500040003000200010000 0118285914-5914.......^ . ..I^..■ .1't 1.55112 —0-51127-1—0 0^0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5 0.6^0.7^0.8^0.9^1.0^1.1^1.2^1.3^1.4^1.5foo24.d.^...10224 ^ I....Figure 5.27 shows Margaret Sherwood's pronunciation of Fiastrchaf, the sameword given by AS in Figure 5.25, but in Spokane, which appears to have retained somemore consonant-like constriction for the initial pharyngeal. Fl during the pharyngeal is695 Hz, F2 1434 Hz, F3 2887.1560 0^ 0.1^ 0.2ms24.expanded.dFigure 5.27: Ficestrchar' (Spokane: MS)6000500040003000200010001.000018472 'T9236---9236:00^0.1 0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5^0.6^0.7^0.8^0.9^1.0pf45.d0 0 0.1 0.2184729236-9236Figure 5.28 is of a Spokane speaker in her sixties (PF) pronouncing [Timt] 'getangry'. As with the Kalispel-Chewelah form, word-initial [c] has a period of low-amplitude initiation, but this speaker moves into a full-amplitude vowel more rapidly thanAS and far more rapidly than MS. Fl 732 Hz, F2 1273 Hz, F3 2804 Hz.pf45.big.d157Figure 5.28: Timt 'get angry' (Spokane: PF)600050004000300020001000Word-finally PF's pharyngeals tend to voiceless expiration and loss of energybetween formants, as seen in Figure 5.29. Fl is 815Hz , F2 1239 Hz, F3 2788 Hz as thewaveform loses amplitude. F3 in particular decays at offset.0.1^0.2^0.3^0.5^0.6^0.7 pf4b.d158 kO\0.0^0.1^0.2pf46.big.dFigure 5.29: p'aS 'burn' (Spokane: PF)600050004000300020001000919552 ^' 19776-97760.0^0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5^0.6, I „In,,,,,,,^,,,,,,,,^•0.7^0.8^0.9^1.0^1.1^1.2^1.3^1.4pf 54.dThat this is a word-final phenomenon is clear from the form [hec ya.T'C'mi] 'peopleare gathering' (Figure 5.30) where the pharyngeal remains fully voiced and fully resonantdespite phonemic glottalization realized phonetically as varying periods of glottal closure(and some creak) after the pharyngeal itself. Formant values are Fl 807 Hz, F2 1281 Hz,F3 2908 Hz at the midpoint of the second pharyngeal.Figure 5.30: [hec yaMmi] 'people are gathering' (Spokane:PF)5.3.2.2 Colville-OkanaganColville pharyngeals have been described as difficult to hear. Mattina (1987:vii) inhis dictionary of Colville-Okanagan notes that 'the most likely cases of phonetic uncertainty1590. 7n6000s on:-4000:-3000-2000-0074503725-37250.4^0.5^0.6^0.7loc99.d0.0involve the glottalized resonants and the pharyngeals12. The speaker (CQ) who providedme with the forms shown below is a respected story-teller with considerable knowledge ofdialect variation within the Colville-Okanagan continuum. His word-initial pharyngeals(Figure 5.31) start off with what seems to be a characteristic low-amplitude sectionfollowed by gradual increase (full amplitude at 130 ms into the utterance). Formant valuesare Fl 712 Hz, F2 1462 Hz, F3 2264 Hz at voice onset.Figure 5.31: Sitmn 'teeth' (Colville: CQ)12This problem is not specific to Colville though. Low vowel-pharyngeal sequences are notoriouslydifficult to transcribe in proper order without the aid of phonological information. The Nxa'amxcin wordfor 'crow' is transcribed xaixaz,, but one speaker (AB) wrote it variably as 'Oak, nana.1600 0^0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5^0.6^0.7cq57.dcq57.biq.d60005000-4000-3000-2000-1000-0 p7930.j.^11o 73965-^ye,*Word-finally, [S] tends to voiceless aperiodic release as in the Spokane formsabove. In Figure 5.32 Fl is 826 Hz, F2 1469 Hz, F3 2569 Hz just before cessation ofvoicing.161Figure 5.32: pal 'grey' (Colville: CQ)60005000:4000:3000-2000-ion"- 011411011' T8I14,11:38401I^I^I^1^..I^I^I^■^I^■^I^I^I0.1^0.2 0.3^0.4^0.5^0.6^0.7cq79.dIH^I 1^.■^1.^,.,.^,^. 1^' 0.8^0.9^1.0^1.1^1.2^1.3-3840:0 0oq79.expanded.dThis amplitude decay in the waveform occurs before a voiceless obstruent also,with corresponding loss of energy in the higher region of the spectrum. This can be seenin Figure 33 where F3 and F4 pretty much disappear. Fl is 809 Hz, F2 1439 Hz, F3 2475Hz just before amplitude reduction. (F1 is 802 Hz, F2 1449 Hz, F3 2463 Hz duringreduced period).Figure 5.33: [xwuyt ciya^'they have arrived' (Colville: CQ)5.3.2.3 Coeur d'AleneThe speaker (LN) who provided me with the forms shown below also served as162Reichard's consultant in 1935-36. The form in Figure 5.32 is of a word-initial IV followedby a low vowel which is backed to [a] by the following /r/. I include this form here sinceCoeur d'Alene In is a member of the faucal class for this language and plays a role invarious phonological harmonies which lower and retract vowels (section 6.6.2.4).16300 0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5^0.6^0.31n74.d0.20. 0 0.11n74.1n1g.d600050004000300020001 0 0000010964—0.75482 -istiofft/0004-44-44.0-mw+-4,-----109645482 ———————-5482 —frjThe obstruent quality of the glottal gesture for /?/ is apparent from this spectrogram—theform starts off with a classic stop release. Full amplitude on the vowel is reached veryquickly (within 4 glottal cycles), which again differentiates the articulation of /?/ from /l/.Fl is high (658Hz) and F2 low (1246 Hz), F3 2351 Hz even at voice onset, illlustratingthe well-documented effect of retracted Coeur d'Alene In on preceding vowels. As withAmerican /r/, Coeur d'Alene In lowers F3 dramatically.Figure 5.34: ?ar 'much, plenty' (Coeur d'Alene: LN)Consonant-resonant sequences in Interior Salish are typically phonetically separatedby a brief svarabhakti vowel, the quality of which is determined by consonantal1641215000 0.3 0.5^0.61n219.d0.1 0.40.2 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.14/Of'1,1 0.11n219.expan3ed.dJ-a-0 0 0.2environment. This is illustrated in Figure 5.35 with the form [cic C6/'[ 'I'm angry'.Figure 5.35: cic Tgy"I'm angry' (Coeur d'Alene: LN)After release of the [s] of Rs], there is a schwa-like vowel of one glottal cycle, then a 70 msperiod of the now-familiar low-amplitude irregular waveform corresponding to the periodof maximal constriction. Fl is 616 Hz, F2 1478 Hz , F3 2198 Hz as voicing resumes.Voicing and amplitude become regular as the vocal tract moves into the following let-vowel. This particular example shows creak coming out of the pharyngeal and going intothe vowel. To my knowledge this form is not transcribed with [V]. Again, as with theSpokane forms above, this phonetic creak is quite different from the realization of1650.3^0.4^0.5^0.6^0.7^0.8^0.9^1.0^1.1^1.21n51.d0 0^0.1^0.20.2ilb,^pri 4^rtl^A =A^/I,AJ^/VI^r\ " '7?6 6 L"F "—'1""1"1" l'—{1-1" 1'1^'^I^I^'^I^1 '6000^5000^-E4000^-E3000^-E20001000^0 ^0.0phonemically glottalized /V/. As seen in Figure 5.36 [mcf'wns] 'he broke it', phonemicglottalization of pharyngeals can phonetically decompose into a [?5] sequence, leaving inthis case a period of voiceless aspiration showing the formant transition from [e] to [S"'].This example also shows the low-amplitude start-up for [VI. F3 lowering in this form isalso visible, but may be exaggerated by the rounding on [Tw]. Fl, F2 and F3 at glottalclosure are 546 Hz, 1732 Hz, 2384 Hz. At onset of voicing for [Vv] the values are 495Hz, 1440 Hz and 1642 Hz respectively. These relatively low formant values undoubtedlyreflect the rounding on [M.1n51.expanded.dFigure 5.36: mET'wns 'he broke it' (Coeur d'Alene: LN)1660.4^0.5^0.6^0.739 .d0 0^0.1^0.2^0.325232126160 0 0. 1 0.215.3.2.4 ShuswapThe three Northern Interior Salish languages, Lillooet, Shuswap and Nie?kepmxcin(Thompson) are considered a sub-branch of Interior Salish. I deal here with Shuswap andthen Niekepmxcin. The Shuswap pharyngeals are consistent with what has beendiscussed for the Southern Interior languages. Word-initially [1] shows low-amplitudeirregular initiation, with Fl 678 Hz, F2 1419 Hz, F3 2239 Hz (Figure 5.37).bd39.expari1ed.dFigure 5.37: Sipkn 'I'm angry' (Shuswap: BD)167In the form [pfpeCt] 'grey' (the form is reduplicated with syncope of the prefixvowel conditioned by stress loss) Fl and F2 clearly raise from their position right-adjacentto initial [p] and there is mirror-image lowering just before the point of bilabial closure(Figure 5.38). Maximal formant values are Fl 760 Hz, F2 1203 Hz, F3 2374 Hzrespectively. The pharyngeal is very resonant with most excited Fl, F2 and F3, but clearF4 and F5.1681:d116.dbd116.big.dFigure 5.38: pipeft 'grey' (Shuswap:BD)The Shuswap version of [51 can be seen in Figure 5.39. Phonologically the formis^'dragging things around', but phonetically it is [lTi7im] with clear transition to theryi 0 917332 8666-8666stressed vowel just before and during the glottal stop portion of [S']. Midpoint values ofthe pharyngeal portion are Fl 894 Hz, F2 1241 Hz and F3 2300 Hz. F2 and F3 risenotably to following IV.I^"'I""'" 'I"^'^I^'^I^'^I16960005000-4 000 -3000 -2000-1000 -^+ + +^+ + + +^+ +^+ + + +8666-866600 0. 1 0.2^0.3 0.4^0.5bd130.d0.6^0.7^0.8^0.900^ 0.1^ 0.2bd13 0 . big dFigure 5.39: 1Ci2im 'dragging things around' (Shuswap:BD)5.3.2.5 Nle?kepmxcin (Thompson)Figure 5.40 shows a word-initial pharyngeal, spoken by DS, a male speaker ofIsRekepmxcin. Isolation and playback of the portion preceding transition into [i] suggeststhat this initial consonant has some uvular quality. It sounds much like a uvular trill. Itwas difficult to read format values for this consonant, but the formant tracker provides Fl446 Hz, F2 1386 Hz with F3 unreliable. Readings taken at the point of transition into the/i/ vowel are Fl 727, F2 1429, F3 2113. The increase in Fl from a relatively low 450 Hzvalue to a value otherwise co-occurring with pharyngeals suggests that this segment movesfrom a uvular place of articulation to a pharyngeal one. This speaker also has some creakright at transition into the [i] vowel, a moment clearly corresponding to release of a lowback articulation and into a high front one13.0 0^0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5^0.6^0.7s4.d0 8^0.9^1.0^1.1170--w2Aryi1/20.1 0.2ds4.expanded.dFigure 5.40: Sis 'shrink' (1•14e2kepmxcin: DS)It has been mentioned that [Ta, all sequences are difficult to distinguish131t should be noted that DS, recorded in the summer of 1991, had had bronchitis that winter. Laryngealgestures in his tokens cannot be confidently attributed to Nlakapmxcin rather than the left-overs ofbronchitis.0.5^0.6^0.7^0.E.0 0^0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4ds122.d^iCo 0.1^ 0.260005000 -4000300020001000Co^c21674 —1083710837-10837h-721674phonetically, although there are often phonological processes such as reduplication whichwill serve to order the two segments. It would seem that the diagnostics of low-amplitudeand waveform-shape can be used to disambiguate [Ca, as] sequences. For example, thetranscription of [cCap] 'ripped' as CCVC rather than CVCC is derivable from thecharacteristics of the waveform, see Figure 5.41.Figure 5.41: cCap 'ripped' (Islle?kepmxcin: DS)The waveform is markedly different immediately following release of the initial affricatecompared to the full amplitude vocalic portion preceding the final [p], cf. for example thelow amplitude irregular waveform noted for #S- in Figures 5.25, 5.27, 5.31 and 5.37. Inconfirmation of the analysis of this form as CCVC rather than CVCC, the waveform of /a/171does not expire to low-amplitude before final [p] as it seems to in other cases of MI before aconsonant, such as in Figure 5.38. Of further note is the fact that the 'pharyngeal' portionof this waveform also sounds much like a uvular trill". However, an FFT spectrum takenat the onset of [S] shows the harmonics of the spectrum decreasing in amplitude from thefrist harmonic of 109 Hz (=F0) until a slight amplitude peak at 914 Hz. If this highestharmonic (914 Hz) is interpreted as Fl, then it is very high and suggests a very open vocaltract, which is not consistent with relatively high uvular constriction. On the other hand, atthe transition from [f] to [a], Fl is 559 Hz, F2 1141 Hz and F3 2116 Hz. Fl here is lowfor a pharyngeal and in line with the understanding that while Fl is a cue for 'low'articulations, Fl will be lower for uvulars than for pharyngeals. The vowel's steady statevalues are 600 Hz, 1179 Hz and 2160 Hz respectively.17214 I isolated and played this portion to two phonetically-oriented linguists, both of whom thought itsounded like a uvular trill.Word-finally the 1■14e2kepmxcin pharyngeal seems very much like the Spokaneones, with voiceless aspirated expiration, as in Figure 5.42. Formant values for thepharyngeal are Fl 799, F2 1138, F3 2422.0 0^0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5^0.6^0.7^0.8ds160.d 417314714 7357-73570.0^ 0.1^ 0.2ds160.expanded.dFigure 5.42: paf 'bleached by the sun; grey' (Nlekepmxcin: DS)5.3.2.6 Moses-ColumbianI turn now to pharyngeal articulation in Moses-Columbian, which is unique inInterior Salish in adding phonemic [h,hw] to a pharyngeal inventory which in the otherlanguages contains only voiced pharyngeals.15 None of the Moses-Columbianpharyngeals I have recorded sound at all uvular-like in the way that some N1eikepmxcinpharyngeals do.5.3.2.6.1 Voiced pharyngeals:/C,CY do not occur initially in Moses-Columbian (Kinkade 1967). Instead, Figure5.43 shows word-initial [SW] in the form [Cw611 'bright, shiny, glisten'. The spectrogramof this word shows no energy above 1000 Hz for about 200 ms, matching the long periodof low-amplitude initiation before the vocalic portion begins.17415Although, as noted, /hw/ occurs in only one morpheme and Okanagan may also have /h/.6000+ + + ++ + + ++ + + +500040003000200010000.3i-6839-^.1^I•.. I,... ^.I 0 3^0.1 0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5i0.6^0.7^0.8^0.9^1.0^1.1^1.2^1.3^1.4^1.5ab156.d0.1 0.2004186-418675--8372ab156.expanded.dFigure 5.43: '1' 'bright' (Moses-Columbian: AB)17560005000r-4000-3000-2000-1000-,1111.60HOWww11,.K,^1.4I^'^I0'.0 0120806040--6040-0 0^0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5 0.6^0.7^0.8^0.9^1.0^1.1^1.2^1.3^1.4ab137a.d10.1 0.2An example of intervocalic [T] is given in Figure 5.44. This form is transcribed[nxwaTank] but may better be [neSank/. In any case, the pharyngeal is very resonant inthis position and there is no question of suppressed initiation. It is like intervocalicpharyngeals in this respect, including the Arabic one in Figure 5.23. (F1 1051 Hz, F21615 Hz, F3 2445 Hz).ab137.expanded.dFigure 5.44: nxw(a)idnk 'cave; hole in a hill' (Moses-Columbian: AB)1766000.....,..„,1^1,^,^I^'^I^I^ 1'111'0.5^0.6^0.7^0.8ab146a.dThe form [scyaT'S'inix] 'they're having a gathering' (Figure 5.45) shows aglottalized [V] which is phonetically a little different from the Spokane form given by PF,Figure 5.30. While [C'] is still fully resonant and regularly voiced in this form,glottalization is realized with what may be a source effect along the lines of breathiness. Atmidpoint of the first pharyngeal, Fl is 865 Hz, F2 1782 Hz, F3 2475 Hz.abl4E.expanded.dFigure 5.45: scyaT'C'mix 'they're gathering' (Moses-Columbian: AB)5.3.2.6.2 Voiceless pharyngeals:Word-initial voiceless [h] is shown in Figure 5.46. [h] has an obvious formantstructure with concentrations of energy in the 1000+ Hz, 1800 Hz, 2500 Hz and 4400 Hz1770.5^0.6ab164a.d0.7^0.8^0.9^1.0^1.1regions. The waveform shows a strong aperiodic noise component of varying amplitude,very much like the Arabic [hi in Figure 5.24. Formant measurements taken at the point oftransitions to the following [i] vowel are Fl 832 Hz, F2 2021 Hz, F3 2522 Hz. Thesevalues are not exactly the same as those discussed for CEA [halabi, but of course thefollowing vowel is different. An -ha- sequence can be seen in Figure 5.48. Fl for Moses-Columbian [h] in this form is nonetheless high and in the region of that found with voiced[1].ab164.expanded.d178Figure 5.46: himt 'angry' (Moses-Columbian: AB)Word-finally, as can be seen in Figure 5.47, [h] maintains its formant structure andis similarly noisy, but with reducing amplitude as the constriction is released.0 0^0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5^0.6ab168a.dab168.expanded.dFigure 5.47: ph 'grey' (Moses-Columbian: AB)1790.5^0.6^0.7^0.8^0.9^1.0^1.1^1.2^1.3^1.4ab171.d0.20.10.0 0.3^0.46000kift1041C.iii1119 ,1099 11.-ab171.expanded.dIntervocalic /h/ does not appear to voice and shows clear movement of formantsfrom the preceding to the following vowel. [h] does not influence the midpoint or steady-state quality of preceding [i] in the form [Icit. nal 'teenage girl' Figure 5.48, although thereare certainly cases where [h] has effects intruding more into the nucleus of precedingvowels. [h] in this form still shows obvious co-articulatory effects of Fl rising and F2lowering as the vocal tract configures for the [h].Figure 5.48: kiha na 'teenage girl' (Moses-Columbian: AB)180I^'^I I^'^I0.0 0. 1 0.2 0.3-F4000-^30007^4-2000710007^4-0 ^t.,^I00194860 0^0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5^0.6^0.7^0.8ab181.d0.96000.^An example of [hw] is given in Figure 5.49. Fl and F2 are a little lower than thenon-labialized [h], as would be expected under the influence of rounding. Again there isno voicing of intervocalic [hw]. At offset, the stressed schwa has an Fl of 620 Hz, F21613 Hz and F3 2386 Hz. At the temporal midpoint of [hw] formant values are 931 Hz,1729 Hz and 2000+ Hz.ab181.expanded.dFigure 5.49: ?e hwa? 'cough' (Moses-Columbian: AB)I have not shown that [h] is distinct from laryngeal [h] and uvular [x], the twosegments of which one might suggest they are potential variants. Word-initial laryngeal [h]181is shown in Figure 5.50. In this position it contrasts with /h/. For speaker AB, initiallaryngeal [h] is markedly and consistently shorter in duration than initial [h]: 143 ms vs.244 ms respectively, averaged over four tokens for each type. Intervocalically (six tokens)and before a consonant (four tokens), [h] has a duration close to 200 ms. Intervocalic [hw](two tokens) has an average duration of 202 ms for this speaker. Thus, all /h/ are 200+ms for AB. For speaker ED the distinction in word-initial duration seems to be lessstriking: 132 ms vs. 144 ms averaged over four tokens for [#h-] and five tokens of [#h-]Intervocalically for this speaker, duration of [h] ranged from 75 to 180 ms, but was verydifficult to measure because of heavy coarticulation with flanking [al-vowels (the form is[saelihaha?u) 'neighing').From the expanded waveform of Figure 5.50 it can be seen that [h] does not havethe amplitude of noisy frication that [h] appears to have. In Arabic, /h/ is commonlyreferred to as 'soft h', an appellation which seems appropriate here also, since in contrast to[h], laryngeal [h] seems to me to be noticeably muted, at least in these recordings.1820.30.2frHowever, M.D. Kinkade (pc) reports that /h/ and /h/ are often difficult to distinguish inMoses-Columbian and it appears that in some tokens given me by ED, /h/ has lenited to[h]. Unfortunately, the data do not exist to construct diagnostics based on airflowmeasurements for these two consonants.; : -1-'3 13-1- + + . + +_ + + + , -I- __ -4- -E -E -i- + 3^3 3^-_0.^3331 -1-^• -E -1- -E + k, . -,'1^,14,1:10,1411. 011.:^i+ .; + + .^ev,:!* + -1- -;33h3;33!3wilyfiktid.^.__,,3.i.,1^0 k 7 kw L 1.4'' '^'^'^' I'^'^I i I i i ' I ' 1 f 1^1 ' '1^1 1 I1111 11111i00 0.1 0.2 0.3^0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7^0.ab179a.d 183600050004003002001001292621-621ab179.expanded.dFigure 5.50: ha? kw61"Are you warm (enough)?' (Moses-Columbian: AB)As for the voiceless uvular [x], this fricative too tends to have formant structure,with bands at 1500+ Hz, 3000+ Hz and 4000 Hz. These are quite different from theformant structure of [h] (as in Figure 5.47) which has formants in the region of 1100 Hzand 1800 Hz. The formant structure of [x] can be seen quite clearly in Figure 5.51.0.1 0.20 0ab51a.diiCoarticulatory vowel effects from uvulars are distinct from those conditioned bypharyngeals and glottals as has been seen.6000184.1.^I,^J0 0^0.1^0.2^0.3ab51a.dFigure 5.51: pax(paxt) 'wise'Finally, to underscore the distinction between uvular, pharyngeal and laryngealarticulation, consider the following four figures. In terms of the spectral attributes ofvoiceless [h], broad peaks at high frequencies are reported for Arabic /h/ (Alwan 1985).Figure 5.52 shows two spectra of Colloquial Egyptian Arabic [h] (taken from the formshown in Figure 5.24) taken at the beginning and middle of [h]. The window size for allspectra shown here is 50 ms.p fmntilincihomehicolakfbiegyptispeechisw94.d: 759.48n1445.1Hz^85.6dB^80. 3dB"604020— 01170.1'^TO—_—__—, .qi i 'W1. 31TrI1'..rl't II I. 4E1000 2006^3000^4000^500010 fmntilinc/hometnicolatdbiegyptispeethisw94.d: 759.56E201. 2Hz^104.1dB^97. 7dB.,^I,^i^i^,^1^1^1^■^1^■100 —eo60 ——40 ..--—20 r--'`)01 .^,`'6itr'q ' I1 000^Zood^iooci^4006^iooOFigure 5.52: Colloquial Egyptian Arabic [hi spectra at initiation (top) and midpoint(bottom).185From Figure 5.52 it can be seen that Colloquial Egyptian Arabic [h] has slightly broaderpeaks than the Salish [h] spectra in Figure 5.53, which are taken at the beginning andmiddle of the first pharyngeal in the form [2ihaha2am] 'neighing' as spoken by AB.0 ilmnt/lincihomeinicola/db/mosesabispeechiab164.d: 1201097.6Hz 90.4dB^86.3dB^90806014020O-'-,-III!.'.:'1^1 ' 'Ill,. ,.^I • i6^ioc6^ioo6^3006^4006^50000 imntilincihomeinicola/db/mosesab1speechlab164.d: 12IQ1061.0Hz^106.8dB^105.4dB10080604020I^14! 1 ,r^1 1 1 I .' " I r1^'1' .1.'16166'''''20I66'''''30l06'.'''40106'''''0'0 '''''''Figure 5.53: Moses-Columbian [h] spectra at initiation (top) and midpoint(bottom)Further, while the Colloquial Egyptian Arabic [h] shows little decline in energy in thehigher energy regions and has a relatively flat spectrum, this is not the case for the Moses-Columbian /h/, particularly in the middle portion where there is a noticeable decline inenergy in the 2500-4500 Hz region. Compared to the spectrum for Moses-Columbian [h]in Figure 5.54, perhaps the most striking difference is the position of F3 relative to F4.These two formants are much closer together for [h] than [h].1862000^3000^4000^5000-2080604020[gi finntlinc/homeinicolaidbArnosesabispeechiabl 79.d: 1601042.7Hz^90.7d8^90.6dB^90Figure 5.54: Moses-Columbian [h] spectra at midpointFinally, with respect to uvular /x/, F3 and F4 are close together as with [h], but thedistance between F2 and F3 is larger than that for both [h] and [h] (Figure 5.55). Fl in thespectra of [x] is in the region of 600 Hz16 and there is a second peak at 1500 Hz. Thesereadings are quite different than those for [hi, viz. 1000+ Hz and 2000 Hz.0 tmntf1incihomeinicola/dbfrnosesa3ispeechiab51 a.d: 24.E0237.8Hz^80.6.8^87.5dB^801111N1111111111111111.111.11.111111.11N11111111111111111111E. 1^.4020-201^.. I rilfI0^1000^2000 3000 4000 5000Figure 5.55: Moses-Columbian [x]: spectra at midpoint.5.4. ConclusionFor the phonological purposes of this dissertation it is important to establish the factthat Interior Salish has segments very much like Semitic is, h/. Given a clear phonetic16Note that this is a case where an unusually high harmonic in the region of 200+ Hz has been picked outas as a peak. This is the FO value for this speaker, but in tracking this as a (formant) peak, the LPCalgorithm has chosen to treat the peaks in the region of 400-800 Hz as a trough between the higheramplitude peaks at 200 Hz and 1500 Hz.187affiliation between Semitic and Salish pharyngeals, their phonological affiliation (or lackthereof) can be explored without the complaint or suspicion that we are dealing withdifferent physiological and acoustic entities.From a phonetic point of view, the investigation I have undertaken replicatesanalysis techniques that render the results reported easily comparable with the vast majorityof investigative phonetic work on Arabic, as well as that reported for Caucasian andKhoisan.There are several directions that further work might concentrate on: first, it isrecorded in the literature that fundamental frequency is lowered in the production of ArabicIS/ (Ghazeli 1977) and on /1, is/ (Alwan 1986, et al.). While this study has notedoccasional creaky voice and voiceless word-final expiration of /5/, it has not presentedstructured information on the topic. The situation in Interior Salish is complicated by thephonemic contrast between /1/ and /17, which does not exist in Arabic. One would notexpect phonetic laryngeal effects on /1/ to challenge consistently the interpretation of /57,since this would neutralize the contrast. Adequate investigation of the FO characteristics ofInterior Salish pharyngeals requires an extensive investigation of the FO characteristics ofother fricatives and resonants in the inventory as well as their glottalized counterparts(where they occur), since these are the two classes of segments to which pharyngeals mightbe argued to belong and from which they must be distinguished. I leave this as a matter forfurther investigation, and simply note here that the descriptive literature does not reportglottal effects on non-glottalized pharyngeals in Interior Salish that parallel the descriptionsof glottal effects on Arabic /1/, and my own investigations do not suggest the same extentof laryngeal involvement in Salish pharyngeals as is reported for Arabic. Second,structured information on formant bandwidths and the duration of the various pharyngealshas not been presented. However, Alwan (1986) found that the voicing contrast had moreto do with conditioning duration on uvulars and pharyngeals than place of articulation, soone would not expect duration to substitute for place of articulation cues. Third, absolutely188no perceptual work has been done17. Alwan (1986) reports perceptual data showing thatpharyngeals can be differentiated from uvulars on the basis of Fl bandwidth. It is hopedthat these shortcomings will be remedied in due course.18917 A potentially interesting experiment would be to isolate and play Interior Salish pharyngeals to Arabicspeakers, and vice versa. I have played Niekepmxcin pharyngeals to a phonetician who is also an IraqiArabic speaker. He immediately identified the pharyngeals as pharyngeals, even though NIelkepmxcin is alanguage in which they are sometimes recorded as somewhat uvular.Chapter Six: Post-velar phonology6.0 IntroductionChapters 3 and 4 have considered the broad typological and the general phoneticaspects of post-velar articulation. Chapter 5 examined Interior Salish data in somephonetic detail, noting that post-velars (with the exception of /2, h/) form a phonetic classwith respect to co-articulatory effects on vowels. This chapter turns to consider thephonological behaviour of post-velars, focussing on data from Interior Salish. Theinvestigation of Interior Salish brings three main results: (i) the phonetic classhood ofpost-velars as examined in Chapter 4 is phonologized in ways which provide evidence fora fourth articulator node; (ii) there are constraints on post-velar activity analogous tothose found in some African ATR systems and some descriptions of Arabic emphasis;(iii) Interior Salish laryngeals are not characterized under the fourth node motivated foruvulars and pharyngeals.In motivating a fourth node Interior Salish parallels Semitic, but the class ofSemitic gutturals does not have a correspondent in Interior Salish. While uvulars andpharyngeals are members of natural classes in both language groups, the Semiticgrouping of laryngeals with uvulars and pharyngeals is unattested in Interior Salish. Thisis despite the fact that the Interior Salish inventory contains all of the segments that makeup the guttural class—that is to say uvulars, pharyngeals and laryngeals. It is also thecase that Contemporary Standard Arabic does not include the uvular stop /q/ in theguttural class, whereas /q/ is not phonologically isolated from other uvular segments inInterior Salish. These facts are of some theoretical and typological interest.190The constituency of the phonological classes attested in Contemporary StandardArabic and Interior Salish are given in Table 6.30, using Coeur d'Alene as representativeof a post-velar class which includes a coronal.Table 6.30: Guttural and faucal classesContemporary Standard Arabic gutturals Interior Salish FaucalsX, g, 5, h, 2, h q, qw, Ce, qiw, X, Xw, 5, 5w, 5% 5'w, (h, hw)Contemporary Standard Arabic emphatics Interior Salish retracted coronals1t, (1, 5, Z g, $, 1, l', r, r', z, z', (0)This chapter begins by outlining the phonological processes motivating the classof Semitic gutturals (section 6.1). Evidence from Semitic for the grouping of emphaticswith uvulars and pharyngeals is also reviewed. The discussion is based primarily on datapresented by Hayward and Hayward (1989) and McCarthy (1991). As a consequence ofthis research, the Semitic gutturals are currently understood to motivate the inclusion of azone (Hayward and Hayward 1989) or node (McCarthy 1991) by which gutturalclasshood is referenced. Section 6.2 considers the general properties of individualmembers of the post-velar class as it is constituted in Interior Salish. In particular, dataand argumentation are presented for the representation of Interior Salish uvulars with aDorsal and Tongue Root node and for the identification of a class of resonants of whichpharyngeals (but not uvulars) are members (sections 6.2.1 to 6.2.3). Section 6.2.3concludes by considering the broad distributional properties of Interior Salish post-velarsand points to diachronic evidence for the identification of a class of post-velars in thedevelopment of the modern vowel inventories from Proto-Salish */i, a, u, a/.Section 6.2.4 develops argumentation for the class of faucals /r, r', q, qw, q', q'w, x,xw, 5, SW,^S'w/ in Coeur d'Alene, and proposes that a fourth node, Tongue Root, is1/z, z'/ are found in 1•14elkepmxcin and Lillooet (Thompson and Thompson 1992, van Eijk 1985). They aredenti-lateral resonants. The status of retracted /4/ is not entirely clear so it is parenthesized.191required to represent their phonological behaviour. Section 6.2.5 pursues evidence forthe Tongue Root node from the characteristics of Regressive Faucal Harmony in the otherInterior Salish languages. Evidence for the opacity of /i/ to Regressive Faucal Harmonyin Spokane and Kalispel is of some theoretical importance since it parallels somecharacteristics of African ATR systems.Section 6.2.6 examines further phonological evidence for a Tongue Root node byconsidering progressive harmony processes in Interior Salish, again focussing on Coeurd'Alene, but considering the variation in target conditions across the various languages.As with Regressive Faucal Harmony, there are some languages in which /i/ andoccasionally /u/ are resistant to harmony. Section 6.3 considers the application ofconstraints on African ATR systems to Interior Salish harmonies. It is argued that theSalish systems provide evidence for some of the constraints proposed by Archangeli andPulleyblank (1992) to govern the association of [+/-ATR] with height and backnessfeatures. Finally, in section 6.4 the use of the Dorsal features [-high, +back] tocharacterize Coeur d'Alene faucals is considered and contrasted with an analysis whichforegrounds the considerable degree of parallelism between Interior Salish harmonyprocesses and tongue root harmonies of the sort found in many African languages.Section 6.5 concludes by presenting evidence that the Interior Salish laryngeals are notcharacterized under the node Tongue Root, and are appropriately analysed as Place-less.192Coronal^Tongue RootThe representations here proposed for Interior Salish post-velars (as found inCoeur d'Alene) are given in (1) (cf. Cole 1987, Besse11 and Remnant 1989, Besse11 1990,Remnant 1990, Besse11 and Czaykowska-Higgins 1991, McCarthy 1991, Shaw 1991bDoak 1992).(1) Coeur d'Alene Post-velars/r, r'/^ Uvulars[+son] [-son]I IPlace Place193Tongue Root0DorsaloPharyngeals[+son]I) Placeo Tongue RootGlottals[-son] [+/-cont]Only relevant root node and Place information is shown for those segments withPlace specifications in (1). The use of two articulators for the representation of uvularscan be compared to use of the Coronal and Dorsal nodes for palatals. Phonetic as well asphonological distinctions between uvulars and pharyngeals are fomalized via this doublearticulation.2 The crucial aspect of Interior Salish /?, h/ is that they are formallyPlaceless. Given the Sagey (1986) model of articulator node feature geometry, thistranslates into the representation of r2, h/ without the fourth node which is otherwisemotivated for post-velar segments in Salish. Since there is no evidence in Coeur d'Alenefor a pharyngeal zone or place of articulation such as is motivated by Semitic evidence20ne might appeal to phonetic implementation rules to derive some aspects of the difference betweenuvulars and pharyngeals as given in (1), i.e. that the TR node in combination with Dorsal is realizeddifferently that a pure Tongue Root articulation. Crucially, (1) affords a representation of uvulars andpharyngeals such that they share a node (Tongue Root, in this case) that is referenced for phonologicalpurposes.for the grouping of uvulars, pharyngeals and glottals I continue to use the term TongueRoot for the fourth node, and I assume that it is an articulator node. If Semitic is taken tobe the paradigm case motivating a division into Oral and Pharyngeal zones (see section6.1), and the fourth node should be understood as a Pharyngeal Place node, then theInterior Salish data discussed here unambiguously confirm the observation that laryngealsneed not be characterised by it (McCarthy 1991).3 Furthermore, the geometries proposedhere do not characterize Interior Salish pharyngeals with a Dorsal node since I know ofno processes which require it on pharyngeals (see sections 6.2.1 and 6.4). Languagesmay vary as to which coronals are 'retracted' (Lillooet and Nie?kepmxcin have a retracted/z/ for instance), but otherwise the representations in (1) are proposed across InteriorSalish. The use of continuancy features for glottals is discussed in Chapter 7.6.1 SemiticThe class of Semitic gutturals has been noted descriptively for some time (e.g.O'Leary 1923, Blanc 1953, Ullendorf 1955). Individual members of the class arereconstructed for Proto-Semitic, although it is not clear that the diagnostics for a gutturalclass in Modern Standard Arabic as derived from Classical Arabic themselves date backto Proto-Semitic, although some may (McCarthy 1991). The theoretical significance ofthe guttural class, particularly its implications for the characterization of laryngeals, isnoted by Kenstowicz and Kisseberth (1979). Formal analyses in current frameworkswere independently derived on opposite sides of the Atlantic by Hayward and Hayward(1989) and McCarthy (1989, 1991).6.1.1 Semitic gutturals31 note here that while the Salish data do not motivate the full details of McCarthy (1991) model they arenot incompatible with it in the sense that the Salish representation of non-Pharyngeal laryngeals can bestipulated. I have maintained the articulator model for the sake of exposition.194As mentioned, it has been recognized for some time that gutturals constitute aclass in Semitic phonology but only recently have formal proposals found their way intothe theoretically-oriented literature. A paper on the topic was presented at the 1987meeting of the Linguistic Association of Great Britain by Hayward and Hayward, amanuscript version of which circulated until its publication as "'Guttural': arguments fora new distinctive feature", in the Transactions of the Philological Society in 1989. Adetailed presentation and discussion of a broad range of relevant data appear inMcCarthy's (1991) manuscript, which also proposes revisions to feature geometry toaccommodate formally a class of gutturals. Drawing on these papers and otherdescriptive sources, the need to refer to gutturals as a natural class can be summarized asfollows.4 In general, the evidence is of five or six types, and here I follow McCarthy'sdivisions. Formalization of the processes outlined below is argued by McCarthy (1991)to require reference to a node Pharyngeal which characterizes the class of gutturals.1. Vowel lowering in guttural contextsSection 4.3.1 discusses the phonetic lowering (and arguably centralizing) effectsthat Semitic uvulars and pharyngeals tend to have on adjacent vowels. This is not aparticularly surprising phonetic fact, since the tongue configuration required for uvularsand pharyngeals involves backing with concomitant reduction of pharyngeal arearegardless of whether a pharyngeal or uvular is articulated. Based on the understandingthat glottal /h/ and /2/ are laryngeal articulations and do not involve tongue activity, onewould not expect laryngeals to pattern with uvulars and pharyngeals by conditioningphonetic effects determined by tongue configuration. Indeed, as has been noted (sections4.3.1.4; 4.4.3) the vast majority of descriptions of Semitic do not record laryngealspatterning with pharyngeals and uvulars vis-à-vis coarticulatory effects on vowels.However, evidence that laryngeals and pharyngeals may condition similar phonetic vowel40f course, a summary cannot do justice to the detail presented in McCarthy (1991) to which the reader isreferred.195quality is presented from Tigrinya (Ethiopian Semitic) by Hayward and Hayward (1989).In Tigrinya the phonemic contrast between /d/ (phonetically [a]) and la is neutralized insyllables with a guttural (N,h,2,h/) in onset or coda position. In such cases, only /a/ isfound, with the vowel quality described as more 'open'. This apparently is also the casein Harari, Gafat and Amharic (also Ethiopian Semitic languages) with Amharic having allof its gutturals reduced to the glottal /h/. Among the Cushitic languages, D'opaasunte hasa phoneme transcribed /A/ which appears as [m] in the environment of gutturals (Ix, G, S',h, 2, h/, where G is an imploded uvular stop) but [E] elsewhere. In these cases /h, ?/ arepatterning with pharyngeals (and in D'opaasunte with uvulars) to condition a lower andmore open vowel quality on the low vowel of the system. Johnstone (1967) reports aninteresting set of data from Eastern Arabian dialects where /a:/ surfaces as [x] except inthe environment of gutturals and emphatics, where the guttural class includes /2/ but not/h/. [a] is recorded in the environment of /2, C/ and uvulars, [a] in the environment ofemphatics and labials.McCarthy (1991) discusses examples of vowel lowering in guttural contextswhich are conditioned morphologically. The roots of Arabic verbs fall into one of fiveablaut classes (for the purposes of forming imperfective and perfective aspects)depending on the quality of the last vowel of the stem. The ablaut class patterns are a/u,aii, Va, a/a, u/u, with membership in the a/a class conditioned by the segmentalcharacteristics of the root. 94% of the a/a roots examined by McCarthy contain a gutturalright-adjacent to the second vowel. Therefore one can argue that a/a roots are derivedfrom a/u and a/i roots by a rule of lowering to [a] in the environment of a guttura1.5 Therule is morphologically conditioned since /V and /u/ are not lowered to /a/ under any otherderivational circumstances. There is also some evidence for the ordering of guttural51t may be that the presence of a preceding /a/ in Guttural Lowering is relevant since only the vowels of theaji and a/u ablaut classes are affected, and u/u roots do not lower to u/a despite the presence of gutturals.McCarthy notes that the u/u class is semantically determined (it consists only of statives), but this wouldnot, a priori, block the application of the rule as stated in (2). McCarthy does not discuss how (2) interactswith the featural specifications of /i/ and /u/.196lowering with other phonological rules of Arabic, cementing the status of gutturals as aphonological (rather than phonetic) class. McCarthy (1991) formalizes the rule ofGuttural Lowering in Imperfect stems as in (2), making reference to the [phayngeal]feature of the guttural class.(2) Arabic Guttural LoweringC^V^C/_]Imperfect Stem[pharyngeal]Furthermore, two rules of Guttural Lowering are proposed for Tiberian Hebrew,.one which is feature-changing, the other feature-filling. Both rely on a similaridentification of the class of conditioning segments as [pharyngeal].2. Root co-occurrence restrictionsHayward and Hayward (1989) discuss co-occurrence restrictions on morphemesin Qafar (Cushitic) which forbid roots to contain homorganic or identical consonants.For the purposes of homorganicity, the guttural segments of the language (IT, ti, h/)function as a class and cannot co-occur in a root. Further, McCarthy (1989, 1991)discusses data from Medieval Arabic and Modern Literary Arabic which likewiseprohibit the occurrence of two gutturals in a root. Segments from other places ofarticulation behave similarly, (3).(3) Arabic Root Morpheme Structure Conditions (McCarthy 1991)a) Labials^/f, b, nilb) CoronaIs ([+sonorant])^/1, r, n/c) CoronaIs ([-continuant]) It, d, , cl/d) CoronaIs ([+continuant]) /0, 6, s, z, $, z (0), /e) Velars^/g, k, q/f) Gutturals /x, lc, C, h, 2, h/197Formally, these constraints can be understood as a consequence of the ObligatoryContour Principle (Leben 1973, Goldsmith 1976, McCarthy 1981, 1986, Odden 1988)which prohibits the occurrence of adjacent identical elements. In order to state thegeneral prohibition against two of /x, i, C, h, 7, h/ in a root, McCarthy (1991) argues thatthe members of this class share a Pharyngeal node in their underlying representation.3. Epenthesis and syllable-final gutturalsMcCarthy (1991) presents data from Tiberian Hebrew where an epenthetic vowelis inserted after syllable final gutturals in unstressed syllables (see also Malone 1984). Asa consequence of this rule syllable final gutturals are rendered syllable initial. No otherclass of segments conditions this rule. Similar processes are recorded in some BedouinArabic dialects (Mitchell 1960, Johnstone 1967, Wright 1966).4. Vowel assimilation across gutturalsJibbali, a Southern Arabian language discussed by Hayward et al. (1988) andHayward and Hayward (1989) has a general rule ensuring that vowels on either side of aguttural are of the same quality. The epenthetic vowel inserted after syllable-finalgutturals in Tiberian Hebrew likewise harmonizes with (or totally assimilates to) thepreceding vowel. Ge'ez (Ethiopian Semitic) has a regressive rule of height assimilationto which gutturals are transparent (see McCarthy 1991).5. Guttural degeminationGeminate gutturals are forbidden in Tiberian Hebrew (Prince 1975, Malone 1978,Lowenstamm and Kaye 1986, McCarthy 1991). McCarthy (1991) notes that the sameprohibition operates in Ge'ez (Lambdin 1978) and Tigre (Raz 1983).1986. Historical mergersMcCarthy (1991) summarizes his sampling of historical merger data within theclass of gutturals, observing that the predominance of merger within the class can beinterpreted as evidence that gutturals share an articulatory node.(4) Guttural merger6Hebrew, Aramaic, MalteseHebrew, Aramaic, Malteseh—>h^Chad Arabic, SocotriT—>2 Chad, Yemenite, Anatolian Arabic, SocotriBefore considering how McCarthy formally represents the class of gutturals asmotivated by the processes outlined in (1-6) above, evidence for a relationship betweengutturals and emphatics must be considered since geometries for post-velars must be ableto account for the behaviour of emphatics as well.6.1.2 Semitic emphaticsThe phonetic facts of emphasis (emphatic consonants induce vowel allophonessimilar to those found adjacent to uvulars and involve some sort of tongue dorsum or rootactivity which reduces the dimensions of the pharynx) might lead one to expectphonological patterning between emphatics and some or all post-velars. The phonetics ofemphasis are discussed in detail in Chapter 4, sections 4.3.1.3 and 4.4.2.Within Semitic, one strand of evidence for emphatics patterning with gutturalsappears to be diachronic in nature and can be reconstructed for pre-Modern Aramaic.Hoberman (1985) reconstructs a regular interaction between emphatics and pharyngealsin the precursor of the modern dialects of Azerbaijan Jews (NW Iran) and Koy Sanjaq61 note here that there do not seem to be cases of uvulars merging with laryngeals, instead uvulars mergewith pharyngeals and pharyngeals with laryngeals. The well-known case of Classical /q/> Colloquial [7] isan obvious candidate for uvular/laryngeal merging, but since /q/ is not a member of the guttural class asconstituted in Classical Arabic it does not bear on the issue of merger within the class of gutturals.199(North Iraq in origin). Neo-Aramaic dialects have a series of emphatic consonants whichbehave much like their Arabic counterparts, invoking spread throughout the worddomain. Interestingly, the physiological correlates of this distinction and its spread inNeo-Aramaic dialects include velarization, labialization, aspiration (Urmi) and evenglottalization (Jewish dialects of Azerbaijan). One of the historical conditions for what istermed "flat" harmony in the Urmi dialect of Iranian Neo-Aramaic is the presence of h, t/or A/ in the old Aramaic cognate. This suggests the inclusion of /1/ in the class ofemphatic/flat segments. The conditions under which /S/ is preserved provide furtherevidence of emphatics patterning with uvulars and pharyngeals. Koy Sanjaq words witheither (i) also contain /q/, or (ii) are cognate with Azerbaijan words that are flat. Incomplementary distribution with A/ is PI , which appears in Koy Sanjaq only if the worditself does not contain /q/ and the Azerbaijan cognate is plain rather than flat. Hobermanhypothesizes that the immediate precursor to Koy Sanjaq and Azerbaijan was a dialectthat had both /2/ and A/ in complementary distribution governed by the appearance of /q/or flat segments within the word: this argues for the exclusion of /?/ from the class offlat/emphatic segments, as also noted by McCarthy (1991).The distribution found in Koy Sanjaq is not a totally isolated phenomenon sincesome Kurdish (Indo-Iranian) dialects also show flat segments in free variation with plainpharyngeals while /q/ conditions the presence of pharyngeals just as it may have in theprecursor of Koy Sanjaq (Kahn 1976, Hoberman 1987, McCarthy 1991). The primarypharyngeals of Kurdish (A, h/) pattern with /q/ and /4, p, P, c/7: a word can contain onlyone of these segments. Borrowings from Arabic with two segments from this class arerestructured to respect these distributional constraints. This patterning can be accountedfor with a morpheme structure constraint referencing and forbidding identical featuralspecifications on If, h, q, s, z, g, t, a. Furthermore, McCarthy (1991) notescorrespondences of the sort Arabic /N:Ugaritic /y/; Arabic /d/:Aramaic /S/ which also7'c' denotes a palato-alveolar affricate (Kahn 1976).200suggest a common element in the representation of emphatics and other post-velars. TheUgaritic correspondence is apparently inconsistent however.Herzallah (1990) discusses some phonological evidence for the grouping of theemphatics of Palestinian Arabic with other post-velars. She cites cases of A, s, 0, z, r, x,y, K/8 functioning as a class for a rule of [-open] dorsalisation which derives the surfacevowel [u] in the imperfective. This particular class does not include the pharyngeals andlaryngeals. A second case from Palestinian involves the emphatics and the entire gutturalclass, viz. A, s, 0, z, r, x, y, K, h, S, h/. This class conditions the appearance of [a] inthe feminine suffix and is analysed by Herzallah as the spread of a specification for[pharyngeal].Data of the sort discussed in the preceding two sections is considered by Haywardand Hayward (1989) and McCarthy (1991) to motivate a phonologically relevant zone orplace of articulation. This place is termed Pharyngeal by McCarthy (1991) and isintegrated into feature geometry as in (5). This theoretical innovation is discussed insection 2.3.1, the relevant parts of which are repeated here for convenience.2018Herzallah (1990) uses /K/ to indicate the Palestinian reflex of Classical Arabic */q/. It is apparently not asfar back as the Classical /q/, but is distinct from /k/ derived from Classical Arabic */k/, which is notpalatalized by all speakers.(5) McCarthy (1991)[back]A major innovation in (5) is the division of Place into Oral and Pharyngeal,reflecting two zones/places of articulation in the mouth. Features and nodes under Oralremain as they were, but the Place node Pharyngeal dominates three possible features:[pharyngeal], [radical] and [dorsal]. The feature [pharyngeal] exists to make thedistinction between class nodes (such as Oral and Pharyngeal) which 'specify featuralsubgroupings' (to quote McCarthy 1991:53) and terminal features which can codephonological distinctions. The feature [radical] refers to the tongue root as an activearticulator. The feature [dorsal] functions under either the Oral node or the Pharyngealnode and indicates active articulation of the tongue body. Based on (5), the fullyspecified geometries proposed for segments involving post-velar articulation in Semiticare as in (6).99McCarthy suggests that the [dorsal] feature of coronal emphatics can be eliminated in underlyingrepresentation.202PharyngealsPhar[radical] [pharyngeal]Oral Ao Phar[dorsal]^[pharyngeal](6) Semitic gutturals, emphatics and /q/: McCarthy 1991203Guttural Uvulars^GlottalsPhar o^Phar^[dorsal] [pharyngeal]^[pharyngeal]Coronal Emphatics01: o^131-[coronal] [dorsal] [pharyngeal]Section 2.3.1 noted the following aspects of (6), repeated here for convenience.The feature [radical] on n, h/ represents the activity of the tongue root in articulatingpharyngeals. The combination [dorsal] [pharyngeal] dominated by the Pharyngeal PlaceNode on /x, g/ indicates activity of the dorsum in the pharynx. The laryngeals 12, h/ arearticulator-less, but not Placeless, being represented with a Pharyngeal Place node.Gutturals all have primary articulation in the pharyngeal cavity, with the emphatics andthe uvular stop /q/ (which is not a guttural in Contemporary Standard Arabic) consideredto be complex segments since they have an additional Place specification under the Oralnode. With respect to the identification of primary as opposed to secondary articulation,McCarthy proposes that phonological rules can specify which, if any, place or articulatorfeatures are primary or secondary. An alternative is that any segment with an Oral placehas a primary Oral articulator and any segment with a Pharyngeal place has a primaryPharyngeal articulator. If so, then presumably Oral/Pharyngeal segments will be complexunless otherwise stipulated.The division of the traditional Place node into Oral and Pharyngeal places (withthe features dominated by those nodes representing articulators) formalizes some aspectsof the traditional phonetic notions of articulator and place of articulation as primitives inthe description of segments. Gorecka (1989) represents an attempt to justify this divisionphonologically across all places of articulation. McCarthy's model is more constrainedthan Gorecka's, but there is nothing in principle to prevent other Oral features such as[labial] and [coronal] from functioning under the Pharyngeal node as articulators.106.2 Interior SalishHaving reviewed some of the Semitic evidence which is considered to argue for afourth node, I turn now to Interior Salish.A generalized Interior Salish inventory (based on Thompson 1979) is given in (7).From this it can be seen that Interior Salish presents a phoneme inventory containingmany of the individual members which make up the Semitic guttural class.(7) Generalized Interior Salish consonantal inventoryllLabial Coronal^Velar^Uvular^Pharyngeal GlottalP^t^c k^kw^q^qw ?p'^t'^c'^X'^k'^k'w^q'^q'wS^i^x^xw^X^Xw^hm^n^(r)^1^Y^w c^Tv?m'^n'^(r')^1'^y'^w' SI^S'wGiven (7) one might wonder how the 'gutturals' of Interior Salish behave. Henceforth,for ease of reference I use the term 'faucal' to refer to the class of post-velar segments asis it constituted phonologically in Interior Salish in general and in the individual10External constraints could be referenced though, since it is physically impossible for the lower lip as anarticulator to combine with the pharynx as a place of articulation (see Gorecka 1989 for mention of suchexternal constraints). On the other hand, given a model of the sort in (5), one might expect to find segments(such as xw or Tw) that can phonologically reference the Pharyngeal node as a place of articulation and thelower lip as an articulator. This, then, might be a case of Labial articulation at the Pharyngeal Place, tospeak in phonological terms.1J have retained the use of L c, c', t, , j, X' for IPA f, ts, ts', tf, tr, d3, a for the sake of consistencywith published sources and because the transcription of affricates as two segments, while it has phoneticmotivation, obscures their phonological status as single segments in Salish.204languages.12 This will serve to distinguish the class as it is constituted in Interior Salishfrom the Semitic guttural class and avoids the ambiguities of the term 'post-velar', whichcan be understood to include laryngeals. As noted, the phonological class of InteriorSalish faucals does not include laryngeals.It was demonstrated in Chapter 5 that uvulars, pharyngeals and the retracted rootsof Moses-Columbian pattern together in conditioning lower and backer adjacent vowelqualities, but this does not speak to the phonological patterning of faucals. Beforepresenting phonological evidence for the class of Interior Salish faucals, I consider firstbroad evidence for the representation of Interior Salish uvulars with both a Dorsal nodeand a fourth node, here termed Tongue Root. Secondly, evidence for the classification ofpharyngeals as (i) [-i-sonorant] and (ii) [+consonantal] is considered. Establishing themembership of resonant and obstruent classes is necessary since one of the majormorpheme structure constraints of Interior Salish forbids C1VC2(C3) roots in which C1and C2 are identical in place and manner. It is shown that while resonants pattern with[-Fconsonantal] obstruents in occupying onset and coda positions in the prosodictemplates referenced by reduplication patterns, their resonancy is reflected by predictablepatterns of syllabic alternations and their status as targets for rules of glottalization.Further, pharyngeal resonants pattern with the more familiar semi-vowels /y, w/ invocalic alternation with [a, i, u]. Thirdly, the distribution of uvulars, pharyngeals andretracted /r, r'/ is summarized. All of these facts are of relevance in establishing andevaluating the evidence for a fourth node in Interior Salish.6.2.1 Evidence for Uvulars as DorsalsPhonological evidence for velar/uvular groupings which motivate a commonelement in the representation of /k/ and /q/ can be found in a number of non-Salish12The term is used by Reichard (1938) with reference to the pharyngeals of Coeur d'Alene and is extendedin the literature to refer to the class of Coeur d'Alene post-velars /r, r', q, qw, q', q'w, x, xw,1 Cw, 1', 1'w/.The term includes retracted coronals where they are motivated. but its use is not intended to impartinformation about the articulation of individual class members or the class itself.205languages. For instance, North Slope Ifiupiaq has a general constraint against velar-uvular consonant clusters (MacLean 1986). Clusters within North Slope Itiupiaq stemsmust obey several constraints. First, the consonants involved must be of the samemanner, so that occlusives may cluster together (pt, tp, tk, kt, tq, qt) as may fricatives, andso on. Secondly, fricative-nasal clusters are permitted, thus yn, Rn, nR, and so on.Thirdly, *kq, *qk, *yR, *Ry are forbidden clusters although otherwise perfectly legitimategiven that they consist of two consonants of the same manner of production. This latterfact can be explained on the assumption that North Slope Itiupiaq does not toleratedifferentiation within dorsal clusters—a class composed exclusively of velars anduvulars. North Slope Iflupiaq has at least one other process which groups dorsals as aclass: when the stops /k, q/ occur before a voiceless fricative, they spirantize to [x,x]respectively. Stops at other places of articulation do not undergo this rule.13Within Interior Salish the behaviour of velars and uvulars is well accounted for ifthey both have a Dorsal node. There are several types of evidence in support of this,ranging from the phonetic to the phonological both within individual languages andacross languages.As noted in Chapter 4, non-native speaker confusion between the two segmenttypes is common. This is not surprising since they are produced in adjacent regions ofthe vocal tract where speakers of most European languages do not make phonemicdistinctions. The description of Interior Salish uvulars is always one of rearward dorsalmovement with some variation in the precise location of contact (see Table 4.12). Unlessplain velar stops have shifted to alveo-palatals (as in Spokane for instance) there is aconsistent velar:uvular contrast for stops, ejectives and fricatives, including roundedvariants, with the uvulars often termed "post-velar" to distinguish them from the "pre-velar" K-series. In some languages the velars and uvulars are described as very close in13See also Elorrieta (1991) for argumentation that velars and uvulars in some languages share a Dorsalnode. All of Elorrieta's examples for velar-uvular dorsals come from Pacific Northwest languages, towhich the the following might be added: Haisla (Walcashan) spirantizes unglottalized velars and uvularssyllable-finally and labializes velars and uvulars after /u, au/ (Lincoln and Rath, 1986).206place of articulation. Thus van Eijk (1985:11) describes the Lillooet dorsals as follows:'The articulation point of the uvulars is quite close to that of the velars; the fricatives x,xw have a rather sharp friction which sets them apart from the velars x xw (in the sameway, q' q'w are mainly distinguished by their fricative off-glide from k' k'w). 14 Velars arealmost (but not completely) assimilated to uvulars when they adjoin these'. Thepropensity for Lillooet velars to assimilate to adjacent uvulars may be accommodated ifboth segments have a Dorsal node. In a similar vein Kuipers (1973:72) reports that theShuswap prefix /x-/ 'in, all over' is [x-] when followed by a uvular or pharyngeal.Evidence for a correspondence between velars and uvulars is not confined to datafrom within specific languages. Kuipers (1981) provides a number of examples of velar-uvular correspondences within Salish of the following sort: Thompson s-qwli? 'copper,green'; Lillooet kwli? 'green, yellow'. Velars and uvulars also pattern together for lateprocesses of rounding in several languages. Van Eijk (1985) notes that unrounded velarsand uvulars in Lillooet are targets for the local spread of rounding in rapid speech andThompson and Thompson (1992) provide a description of rounding velars and uvulars inNie?kepmxcin which suggests sensitivity to adjacency or possibly syllable constituency:dorsals become rounded next to a rounded dorsal in the same syllable or after /u/ in astressed or closed syllable.15Strong phonological evidence for the affiliation of velar and uvular segments istheir patterning for the purposes of root morpheme structure constraints which are held incommon throughout Interior Salish.16 Consonants of the same place and manner are not14This description is entirely in line with the generalization noted by Catford (1988) and Elorrieta (1991)that uvu1ars are often phonetically cued by the quality of their release.15See Jimmie and Shaw (1992) for an analysis of syllable structure in 1•14e?kepmxcin.16Kinkade's data on Moses-Columbian first pointed to this constraint. I have verified that it holds forCoeur d'Alene, Kalispel-Spokane, Nielkepmxcin and Colville. There are occasional exceptions to thisconstraint (e.g. snine?, 'owl' in Spokane) but since sequences of identical root consonants result fromreduplication, there is a clear functional rationale for the exclusion of identical consonants from underivedroots. The constraint may better be stated as one forbidding identical consonants, but it is not quite clearyet whether variation in laryngeal features will permit otherwise identical consonants to co-occur in a rootor not. There may be some variation in Salish on this, so I have stated (8) in terms of identity in place andmanner features.207tolerated in CIVC2(C3) roots, with velars and uvulars treated as sharing a place ofarticulation for the purposes of stating this constraint. Pharyngeals do not participate inthis constraint in the sense that as resonants they can co-occur with stops and fricatives ofany place of articulation, including dorsals, although there is only ever one pharyngealper root.17 fl/co-occurs with stops at all places of articulation, including uvular.(8) Interior Salish root co-occurrence restrictions*C1VC2(C3) where C1 and C2 or C2 and C3 are identical in place and manner*PVP^P=Labial*TVT^T=Coronal*KVK^K=Velar*KVQ^Q=uvular*QVK*QVQ*2V?This prohibition against the co-occurrence of velars and uvulars in a root hasconditioned alternation between velars and alveopalatals in Cowlitz, a Salish language ofthe Tsamosan division (Kinkade 1973).18 Cowlitz alveopalatals g,e , W are derived fromunrounded velars /k, k', x/ under one of two conditions: (i) before a front vowel; (ii)before a uvular in the same morpheme. The data in (9) illustrate the latter case.(9) Cowlitz dorsal dissimilation (Kinkade 1973)k >^66na nq'Inalan^'stuttering'k' > se6cran^'hip joint'x>^kwaI6q 'pop'171 note here that in Columbian, there are no examples of C1 a pharyngeal, C2 a velar, uvular orpharyngeal. (Bessell and Czaykowska-Higgins 1991, based on work by M. D. Kinkade). However, unlike(9) this constraint is not symmetrical since there are roots with a velar or uvular in C1 position and apharyngeal in C2.18Cowlitz is not an Interior language, so the occurrence of the constraint against velars and uvulars within aroot suggests that it may have Pan-Salish significance.208Since Coeur d'Alene is a focus in following sections, processes which can beaccounted for if Coeur d'Alene uvulars and velars are assumed to share a Dorsal node arenoted here. Most significantly, the constraint in (8) is respected in Coeur d'Alene. Thereare also some surface alternations in Coeur d'Alene which indicate the classhood of velarsand uvulars.19 Reichard (1938:544) gives the following examples of seeming freevariation:(10) Velar-uvular free variation (Reichard 1938)q'amqan — k'amqan 'head'dalq'w — dalk'w^'cover entirely'calxw — calxw^'claw, scratch with nails'6.2.2 Evidence for uvulars and pharyngeals as Tongue RootThe data above present evidence for the patterning of Interior Salish uvulars withvelars. This classhood is readily explained if velars and uvulars share a Dorsal node inunderlying representation. However, since velar and uvular obstruents are in phonemiccontrast they require distinct underlying representations. The patterning of uvulars with19There are two other (weak) examples of Dorsal patterning in Coeur d'Alene. Reichard (1938:544) statesthat the labialized dorsals /kW, lew, xw, qw, q'w/ lose the labial in final position or in final reduplication, e.g.fek'ak"he fell' (qt'sk'w); tdxax 'he died' (qtaxw). Reichard does not provide examples of pharyngealsundergoing the same process and a check of roots with final /-Tw/ yields no examples of them in a positionto undergo this rule. If they are legitimately excluded, then the rule is one of Dorsal delabialization ratherthan delabialization of all Cw. One other process of delabialization which also excludes pharyngeals mayhave an explanation in the resonant status of pharyngeals rather than their Place differentiation fromuvulars. Thus, in C(V)- reduplication, initial labialized dorsals spread their labial specification to the vowelslot, so decomposing to [Cu].Ci reduplication of labialized dorsal obstruents-Nikwl 'red' ku+kwdl 'bay horse'Nixwis 'go' xu+xwis-t 'little one went, travelled'-Vcfwad 'black' q'u+q'wdd 'black horse'gxwad 'laugh' xu+xwdd 'little one is comical'Reichard explicitly notes that the labialized pharyngeal /1w/ does not undergo the same process:Ci reduplication of labialized pharyngealN/Twaxw^'stretch string-like object' hrniTw+Twaxw=16n—street car'.However, the explanation for the exclusion of /Tw/ in this process may have to do with the resonance ofpharyngeals and their capacity to be syllabic in this position, unlike obstruents (see section 4.2.2).209pharyngeals to the exclusion of velars indicates that uvulars are differentiated from velarsby virtue of further specifications shared with pharyngeals. The proposed structure underthe Place node for velars and uvulars is given in (11) (cf. Cole 1987, Besse11 andRemnant 1989, Besse11 1990, Remnant 1990, Elorrieta 1991, McCarthy 1991, Shaw1991b, Doak 1992).(11) Interior Salish velars and uvularsVelars^UvularsPlace fDorsal 1Macy\/ \0Dorsal°^Tongue RootThere is a great deal of evidence for this position, much of it to be discussed in latersections. Here I illustrate the phonological classhood of uvulars and pharyngeals usingthe Spokane Repetitive morpheme (Carlson 1980, Bates and Carlson 1992).210The Spokane Repetitive morpheme is analysed by Bates and Carlson (1992) as anon-reduplicative affix consisting of a core syllable headed by an underlying /e/.2° Batesand Carlson (1992) provide a number of examples of repetitive forms, noting that thevowel /e/ of the prefix retracts to [a] when a uvular or pharyngeal is present in anyposition in the following root. Velars do not trigger the process.(12) Spokane Repetitive morpheme21a. Pre-uvular roots: /e/ > [e]46'ip'^ee-1-61p2§^'scissors'kwe+kwil'-e? 'pet name for any red domesticated animal'b) Post-velar roots: /e/ > [a]4naq'^n'a+n'aq'='§n"smelly feet'ta+16q'w=qn"term of endearment for a bald head'41uT'w^n-l'a+l'OC'w-e? 'wore a loose dress without a belt'The /e/—>[a] alternation is readily formalized as spreading from a node shared byuvulars and pharyngeals to the prefix vowel. It will not suffice to spread the Dorsal nodethat has been motivated previously for uvulars, since this will incorrectly include velarsin the class which conditions the process. The form kwe+kwire? 'pet name for any reddomesticated animal' illustrates the exclusion of velars from the class of segmentstriggering the /e/—>[a] alternation.As mentioned, there is a great deal of evidence of a similar sort for uvulars andpharyngeals as a class in other Interior Salish languages, to be discussed in later sections.Here I note that the dual patterning of uvulars with velars on the one hand andpharyngeals on the other is accounted for if uvulars share a Dorsal node with velars and aTongue Root node with pharyngeals. Processes such as the /e/ >[a] alternation in20spokane /e/ is historically derived from Proto-Salish *a (Kinkade and Sloat 1972).21In these and following examples from a Salish language I follow established conventions in indicatingmorpheme boundaries. '4' indicates a root; a lexical suffix; '+' a reduplicative boundary; '-' all othermorpheme boundaries.211Spokane will correctly exclude velars if the process spreads the Tongue Root nodeexclusive to uvulars and pharyngeals.6.2.3 Evidence for pharyngeals as Tongue Root resonantsIt has been shown that uvulars can be distinguished from velars by their dualstructure, and that uvulars share a specification with pharyngeals. What thendistinguishes uvulars from pharyngeals? From the perspective of inventory symmetrypharyngeals are the resonant counterparts to the uvular obstruent series. One mightexpect therefore that they share the feature geometry of uvulars as in (12), differing onlyin values for the feature [sonorant]. However, it is here argued that while there is ampleevidence for pharyngeals as Tongue Root segments, there is virtually no evidence forthem as Dorsal segments.22 As a consequence, they are best represented with the TongueRoot node alone. In making this point, I consider first the defining properties of theresonant class to which pharyngeals belong but uvulars do not. Specific argumentsagainst representing pharyngeals as Dorsals are presented in section 6.4.21222See footnote 14 for the only piece of (weak) evidence that pharyngeals might be Dorsal.It has been mentioned, but not defended, that Interior Salish pharyngeals areconsidered members of a large resonant series. In the Proto-Salish inventory resonantsmatch obstruents at every place of articulation except glottal, (13). Within this structuralpattern the pharyngeals can be considered resonant counterparts of the uvular obstruentseries. None of the modern languages displays the full Proto-series of resonants.23(13) Proto-Salish consonant inventory (Kinkade 1990)213^Labial Coronal^VelarP^t^c k^kwp'^t'^c'^X'^k^k'ws^i^x^xwm^n^r^1 y Y^win'^n'^r'^1' y' y'^w'Uvular^Pharyngeal Glottalq^qW 2qt qtwX^Xw^hC^CwC'^C'wThe resonants in all Salishan languages function as onsets and/or codas in termsof the prosodic structure referenced in reduplication patterns. The behaviour of resonantsas onsets and codas is consistent for all the reduplication patterns attested in InteriorSalish. In occupying these prosodically consistent positions all resonants pattern withobstruents in opposition to vowels. To illustrate this the root and its reduplicated affixare underlined in the examples in (14). Examples (14b, c, d; 15g, h, i, j, k) also illustratecases of non-sonorants reduplicating in onset and coda position.23Except perhaps some dialects of Okanagan. Moses-Columbia Salish has lost only /y, y'/, which are theleast common resonants in the series (Kinkade 1990).(14) Resonant reduplication as onsets and codas: Coeur d'AleneOnsets /m, n, 1, y, w, C/24a) ku-can-md11-Fmal-atb) a-6-nas+ng_a-us-Untc) ltip+lap-td)-yact-Fygs'_-am-d6t-me) ^IgH±LOY-1)214'you are trying to make it too hot''he wets people's eyes''it has quality of effecting dryness''hold on tight''pool table' (lit: that on which something isrolled again and again for someone)'it dropped here and there'Codas /m, n, r, 1, y', w, Cw/25g) ?elan-yamh) ?e-6'i) cdr+cmtj) ^k)^0m) hn-103-7-12SE'it is pinned here and there''it is clamped here and there''it is too difficult to attempt''fenceposts are set''it is possible to write''it dropped here and there''he was indicted'Phonetically the resonant series is clearly differentiated from correspondingobstruents in degree of sonorancy. As a consequence the realization of glottalizedresonants is quite distinct from that of glottalized stops. Glottalized resonants do notoccur with an ejective airstream mechanism of the sort employed for obstruent ejectives,being realized instead with creaky voice for (part of) the duration of the oral gesture,although there may be a brief period of complete glottal closure. The major phonologicaldiagnostics for the resonant class are (i) their isolation as targets for glottalization incertain morphological operations and (ii) their patterning for rules of epenthetic schwainsertion and related resonant syllabicity. I deal with each of these in turn.24These examples all show CVC- reduplication.25These examples are of CVC- reduplication except for (k) and (1), which are C2 reduplications.The main phonological process which identifies resonants as a class, that is to saythe spreading of glottalization to resonants, is ubiquitous throughout Interior Salish.26Stops, fricatives and vowels are excluded as targets of the rule. Structure preservationcannot be argued to prevent the application of glottalization to the stop series since all ofthe Interior Salish inventories have underlying glottalized stops, though not necessarily atall places of articulation. To use the process in Coeur d'Alene as an exemplar, Reichard(1938:836) notes processes in which the entire resonant series /m, n, w, y, 1, r, 1, Tw/becomes glottalized. Resonant glottalization frequently occurs in forms with diminutiveor repetitive reduplication although it is not necessarily restricted to reduplicated forms inall the Interior languages, as will be discussed below. The domain of resonantglottalization on reduplicated forms includes the root and all suffixes, but not prefixes.Diminutive and repetitive reduplication does not count as prefixation for the purposes ofthis rule. The process is illustrated in (15): ( 15a, b, c) are Coeur d'Alene forms showing/1, m, n/, /1"/ and /y, r/ being affected, respectively. The examples in (15 d) are fromSpokane and show glottalization of /1, m, n/.215(15) Interior Salish glottalizationNon-glottalized formsa) Ael-it-kap'he split wood for immediate use'b) hn4law=164=EtkwE?'he plunged his hand in water'c) yft+yEr-p'wagon, they roll'Glottalization'hoe' (lit: sth. which gives ground littlechops)6411a C'w+l'a'pocket knife' (lit: long thing thrust point-first on bottom repeatedly)y'+y'ef+y'er'-p'cart'26See Mattina (1973) for Colville, Thompson and Thompson (1992) forNfekepmxcin, Carlson (1972) forSpokane, van Eijk (1985) for Lillooet, Kuipers (1989) for Shuswap.216d) Sac+Caci-m'he broke a horse'^'a snare trap''a trapper'A further process isolating resonants as targets for the spread of glottalization isdiscussed by Thompson and Thompson (1992). 1•11ekepmxcin has what is termed aspecializing extension which targets resonants for glottalization and is not dependent onreduplication as a context for the rule. Thompson and Thompson note difficulties inpredicting which resonants in a form will be affected, but the point here is simply thatonly resonants are targets for the rule. The semantics of this process vary somewhat, butsome sense of the meaning can be gathered from the forms in (16).(16) INTIe?kepmxcin specializing affix?esqpiT^'(of a slit) open, split''(of a wound) remaining open'nqz6n-m^'go right around'mlzdn-m'^'struggle to get around'Resonants also commonly syllabify. The entire resonant series has syllabiccounterparts, although none of the syllabics derived from resonants can take stress. Thealternations /m, n, 1/> [m, om, mo; n, on, na; al, lo] are common. Under the sameconditions of resonant syllabicity, to be made more precise below, /y, y', w, w7 regularlyvocalize to [i, i?, u, u?]. This analysis can also be extended to the voiced pharyngeals, sothat A, > [a/a, a/a/.27The spectrography presented in Chapter 5 indicates that the Interior Salishpharyngeals are phonetically sonorant in the extreme. There is no real phonetic evidence271 know of no cases where the voiceless pharyngeal of Moses-Columbian syllabifies or otherwise behavesas a resonant. Moses-Columbian seems to be unique in innovating this phoneme, although Okanagan mayhave some instances of it as well.for distinguishing N/ from the so-called semi-vowels /y, w/ in this respect. In fact, theinclusion of pharyngeals in the class of semi-vowels would contribute to an explanationof the extreme difficulty in perceiving them as distinct from an [a/a] vowel in certainpositions, paralleling the difficulty in distinguishing /y, w/ from their vocalic counterpartsin the same positions. Although the inclusion of pharyngeals among the semi-vowels isnot made in all of the existing grammars, Kuipers' (1989) explicit inclusion of theShuswap pharyngeals in vocalic alternation supports the analysis of pharyngeals assemivowels. Virtually the same array of resonant/vowel alternations is noted for Lillooetby van Eijk (1985).(17) Shuswap resonant syllabicity (Kuipers 1989:12)/y, y, w, 1, Sw/ >^[i/e, A, u/o, a, 3]/y', y', w', 1', S'w/ >^[i?/e?, A?, u?/o?, a?, 02]28/m, m', n, n', 1, 1/>^[m, m ', a, a', , l']; [3m, ma; an, n,a; 31,10]The most common contexts for resonant syllabicity are outlined in (18), where Cstands for an obstruent and R for a resonant. Here resonants and obstruents patterntogether in conditioning resonant syllabicity. The examples are from Me?kepmxcin(Thompson and Thompson 1992). Series of resonants are usually separated by anepenthetic [a] as in (18c). Semivowel/vowel alternations in Nie?kepmxcin are illustratedin (19).(18) Conditions for resonant syllabicitya) C_C^#_C^C_#^sm?em^'wife^atene 1 gave him s.t.'^?IX 'm 'sing'b) R_C #_R^R_#ptinms^'she finds it' yn6p 'he shivers'^spdym 'prairie'28Kuipers (1989:12) notes that the [a, o] vowels derived from pharyngeals have what he calls 'apharyngealized character, especially in ES [Eastern Shuswap]'.217c) RRR > RaRaRmanmnipm > manamanipT 'they go spear-fishing'(19)Semivowels > homorganic vowelsgqyaSw=efq >^siTwafq^'secret berry patch'sqwmex^>^sumdx^'life'The alternation of glottalized semi-vowels, including A7 is illustrated in (20) withreduplication data from Moses-Columbia Salish.(20) Columbian resonant syllabicity (Bessell and Czaykowska-Higgins 1991)29Root Reduplication Syllabificationc'W+c'w1=kst-m c'u2-Fc'dw1=kst-trf 'wash hands'kyaT'=dna2 kyan-yaC'=ana? kya2+ya2=ana2 'g'irls'qyaw' k-ydw'±w' k-ydwi+u? 'its unwinding off areel'I add here one other example of pharyngeal syllabicity and that is the Shuswapform pfpeft 'grey' (see Figure 5.38 for a spectrogram of this form). The first pharyngealin this form is phonetically very resonant, and impossible to distinguish from an [a]-vowel.It is clear from the environments noted in (20) that a full understanding of InteriorSalish syllable structure is crucial for predicting resonant syllabicity. In the absence ofsuch an understanding, I simply note here the obvious relationship betweensyllabification and the alternation of resonants with their syllabic counterparts.3°291 thank Ewa Czaykowska-Higgins and Agatha Bart for providing the pharyngeal example. The vowel inthis form is transcribed by Czaykowska-Higgins as having a pharyngeal quality.30See Bagemihl (1992) for an analysis of syllable structure in Bella Coola (Nuxalk, a Coast Salishlanguage). Work on Interior Salish stress (Czaykowska-Higgins, to appear; Bates and Carlson 1989, 1992;Idsardi 1991) of course addresses some of the issues of Interior Salish syllable structure. At the time ofwriting, Jimmie (in preparation) is developing an analysis of syllable structure in Nfelkepmxcin.Preliminary results reported by Jimmie and Shaw (1992) provide evidence of a maximal CVC syllablecanon for Nfekepmxcin.218The data presented here argue for the inclusion of pharyngeals in the class ofresonants. However, Interior Salish pharyngeals are noted by Kinkade (1967) todistinguish themselves distributionally within the resonant class: only one pharyngeal canoccur per root; pharyngeals are not attested in C3 position of a root; pharyngeals do notoccur in affixes of any sort. The latter two constraints are shared with /r, r'/, as will bediscussed. The restriction to C1 or C2 position in CIVC2 (C3) roots seems to be sharedwith a h/. Obstruents and other resonants are not subject to these particularconstraints.31The retracted resonants /r, r7 also have a unique distribution within Interior Salish,as noted by Kinkade and Thompson (1974). /r, r'/ are found in Coeur d'Alene, Spokane,Okanagan and Columbian. The reflex of this phoneme in the other Interior Salishlanguages is /1, 17. Those languages which retain /r, r'/ restrict their occurrence to C2position of a root, so that /r, r'/ cannot occur root-initially or in affixes. In this position /r,r'/ participate fully in reduplication patterns that reference segments in C2 position (see(15c) for an example). Of relevance with respect to post-velars is the fact that /r, r7 inOkanagan, Colville and Coeur d'Alene pattern with uvulars and pharyngeals to conditionthe retention of low variants of vowels derived from Proto-Interior Salish */i, u, a, a!.32This general grouping of post-velars to condition lower vowel qualities is recognizedthroughout Interior Salish. One way of illustrating this is with the diachronicdevelopment of vowel qualities.Table 6.31 (based on Kinkade and Thompson 1974) charts the diachronicdevelopment of Proto-Salish vowels in the modern languages. Post-velars (including Inin the r-languages) block the general movement of */a/ to /e/ that has occurred in all thelanguages except Colville-Okanagan and Coeur d'Alene, where */a/ has raised andfronted past /e/ to /i/. In Columbian, */a/ remains /a/. The class of post-velars also311 note here that there is one root in Columbian .Vxway'T 'scold' with a pharyngeal in C3 (Kinkade 1981).Apparently when this form undergoes C2 reduplication the pharyngeal disappears, unlike other C3consonants (E. Czaykowska-Higgins, personal communication, 1992)32Spokane and Moses-Columbian appear to be an exceptions to this rule (Kinkade and Thompson 1974).219conditions the movement of */a/ to /a/ in all languages except Lillooet, Nie?kepmxcinand Columbian. Lowered variants of /i, u/ are found in the same contexts.Table 6.31: Effects ofpost-velars on vowels (Kinkade and Thompson 1974)Regular reflexes of Proto Interior Salish Vowels Before uvulars andpharyngealsLanguage *i *u *a *a *i *u *a *aLillooet i u e a e o a aNie?kepmxcin i u e a [E] [3] e/a AN Shuswap i u e a e o a aColville-Okanagan i u i a i/a [3] a aSpokane i u e i [e] o a aKalispel i u e i i/a o a aCoeur d'Alene i u i e [e"] o a aColumbian i u a a [e] u a aA synchronic example of the conditioning of vowel quality by faucals has alreadybeen seen in the Spokane Repetitive Prefix in (12). These processes all argue for a nodeto group the class of conditioning consonants together. In the case of /r/-languages, /r,must be included in this class, except for Spokane where /r/ does not seem to have alowering effect.Of further interest with respect to the inclusion of /r, r7 in the class of post-velarsis that its movement to /1/ in the /r/-less languages (20b.i) appears in some cases to havebeen conditioned by the presence of post-velars in C1 position of the root (Kinkade andThompson 1974). In Nfe?kepmxcin (an /r/-less language) 11, 17 derived from */r, r'/ occurin roots where post-velars are found in C1. Since */1/ has shifted to /y/ (20b.ii) and */y/has shifted to /z/ in Nie?kepmxcin (20b.iii), the /ifs found in C2 position where a post-velar occupies CI can be assumed to be the reflex of */r/ (20b.iv).220(20b)(i) *r > 1Moses-Columbian^Me2kepmxcinear-^'salt'^cial-^'salt't4r-^'untie' t41-^'unravel'(ii) *1 > yMoses-Columbian^1•11e2kepmxcinkdlx 'hand keyx 'hand'cilkst 'five'^ciykst 'five'(iii) *y > zMoses-Columbianyr-^'spherical'(iv) *QVr > QV1Nfe2kepmxcinqwil-^'cheat'?es x41^'its cribbed'n-qtglzetn^'cook in a pit'Nfe2kepmxcinzal'a- 'go around in a circle'Furthermore, in the IV-languages, /r, r'/ do not occur in roots with an uvular or pharyngealin Ci position. This strengthens the case for /r, r'/ sharing a node with uvulars andpharyngeals. Once a node is shared, the constraint against the co-occurrence of /r, r'/ withpost-velars and their patterning with post-velars to condition vowel quality are explainedquite simply by reference to this node. However, the node referenced here cannot be theDorsal node which is shared by velars and uvulars, since velars do not participate in theseconstraints. Instead, pharyngeals must have the Tongue Root node which differentiatesuvulars from velars. Reference to this node will correctly group uvulars, pharyngeals and/r, 0.3333The issue is complicated by the fact that Kalispel-Flathead /I/ from *r lowers preceding vowels, whereas/1/ from *1 does not. There is no reported phonetic difference in the two pi's, although this is worthinvestigating spectrographically. See section 6.2.6.2 for argumentation that Kalispel /1/ < *r ischaracterized by a floating Tongue Root node that /1/ < *1 does not have.221To summarize: this discussion has drawn together evidence that the Interior Salishpharyngeals pattern as members of a resonant series. This series is uniquely identified forthe purposes of glottalization and syllabicity alternations. Furthermore, the uvulars andpharyngeals of Interior Salish pattern together to condition the retention of the openvowel /a/, and frequent lowering of */a/ to [a] and */u/ to [o, 3]. The resulting class ofpharyngeals and uvulars cannot be referenced by manner specifications, since /q, q', qw,q'w, x, xw/ are [-sonorant] and /1, 1', Sw, S'w/ are [+sonorant]. In those languages with /r,r'/, the tendency is for these segments to pattern with the uvulars and pharyngeals tocondition low variants of vowels. Again, since /r, r'/ are members of the resonant series,it cannot be argued that they class with uvular stops and fricatives by reference to mannerfeatures. This then raises the question, What is the basis for the classhood of /r, r'/, /q, q',qw, q'w, x, xw/ and A, 1', Sw, 'W/' Since neither manner nor stricture features can groupthese segments, then one must conclude that a place feature or node is shared.222Corona! Tongue Root DorsalThe geometries proposed to account for these distributional and phonological facts aregiven in (1), repeated here. (cf. Cole 1987, Besse11 and Remnant 1989, Besse11 1990,Remnant 1990, Besse11 and Czaykowska-Higgins 1991, McCarthy 1991, Shaw 1991b.Doak 1992).(1) Coeur d'Alene Faucals/r, r7^ Uvulars[+son] [-son]I IPlace Place223Pharyngeals[+son]1 PlaceoTongue RootGlottals[-son] [+/-cont]6.2.4 Coeur d'AleneThe historical conditioning of lower and more open vowels in the context of post-velars and /r, r'/ which has been discussed above, while interesting and suggestive, doesnot provide synchronic evidence for a phonological class. Such evidence is not lacking,however. The clearest Interior Salish evidence for the classhood of uvulars, pharyngealsand retracted coronal /r, r'/ is found in Coeur d'Alene, one of the eastern languages spokenin what is now Idaho. Coeur d'Alene is a particularly illustrative case since it hasphonological retraction processes which while found in the other Interior Salishlanguages are not as pervasive there as they are in Coeur d'Alene. Furthermore, theCoeur d'Alene data clearly illustrate the theoretical and descriptive uniqueness of theInterior Salish faucal class. First, the class of segments with post-velar articulation as it isconstituted in Coeur d'Alene is not known to exist in other language groups as far as Iknow since retracted apical /r, r'/ explicitly participates in the class of faucals to conditionlong-distance vowel alternations. While In is somtimes included among the class ofconsonants targetted by Semitic emphasis spread, it is not included in the class of primaryemphatics (sectio 4.3.1.3). Secondly, insofar as the Coeur d'Alene faucal class has aparallel in the Semitic guttural class (uvular fricatives, pharyngeals, laryngeals) Coeurd'Alene does not support the inclusion of laryngeals in the class defined by a fourth node.The phoneme inventory of Coeur d'Alene contrasts seven places of articulation:bilabial, alveolar, alveo-palatal, palatal, velar, uvular, pharyngeal and glottal. Manyconsonants take labialization, glottalization or both as a 'secondary' articulation, as istypical throughout Interior Salish.34(21) Coeur d'Alene consonant inventory (Reichard 1938)Labial Coronal^Velar Uvular^Pharyngeal Glottal224P^tb^d13'^t'c^t^kwj^gwc'^6'^k'wS i 'S^xw1 1 Y^wr' 1'^y'^w'q qWq' q 'WX XW hin^nm'^n'Surface vowels: [i, t, e, s, x, a, 3, 0, li, u, a]The set of 'faucal' consonants are boxed in in (21). The articulation of theseconsonants has been discussed in general terms (section 4.3.3) but the major points arerecapitulated here. Spectrograms of Coeur d'Alene faucals can be found in Appendix B.The r-series is described by Reichard as apical but with the tongue root 'pulledfurther back' than typical American r's (Reichard 1938:532) and with 'the back of the34Segments with labialization and glottalization reduplicate as single segments, as do the affricates of theinventory.tongue ... pulled down and back' (Reichard 1958:297). Reichard (1938) does not discussthe articulation of uvulars beyond mentioning that they share with the pharyngeals a'general tendency to draw back the throat', but based on X-ray data Reichard (1958:298)specifically notes that Mlle mouth parts involved are in entirely different positions for thetwo series'. The pharyngeal series appears to involve retraction of the tongue root intothe lower portion of the pharyngeal cavity that the uvular series lacks. For thepharyngeals Reichard (1938) says to trill the faucal region with the larynx drawn downand back; Reichard (1958) says the tongue is drawn down and back and that the uvula isstrongly vibrated. Johnson (1975) says the faucals involve retraction of the tongue root.It would appear from all available impressionistic accounts of Coeur d'Alene and relatedlanguages with similar inventories that the faucals share a general tongue rootbacking/retracting gesture, which, as I will argue, is capitalized on in the phonology ofthe language. Spectrographic evidence is consistent with the effect of retraction of thetongue root into the pharyngeal cavity.225As will be argued in some detail, although the variation in surface vowels isconsiderable, the vowel system reduces to Ti, e, u/ (Doak 1989, 1992). Figure 6.56 showsthe distribution of both stressed and unstressed vowels for data collected from LawrenceNicodemus.35 This of course illustrates, as do the Columbian data, the considerablerange of phonetic vowel quality. In these plots the underlying vowels /i, E, u/ arerepresented by "i", "e", "u". The Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony equivalents of theunderlying vowels are represented with "I", "A", "U" respectively; the Regressive FaucalHarmony equivalents are represented with "E", "a", "o" respectively.Coeur d'Alene VowelsF2(Hz)Spkr: L. NicodemusFigure 6.56: Coeur d'Alene vowels at all places of articulation: stressed and unstressed35The appearance of these data owes a great deal to Ivy Doak, who with great kindness made severalappointments with Lawrence Nicodemus, Blanche LaSartre and Margaret Stensgar and assisted withelicitation. As a consequence I was able to record a considerable amount of material in a very short time. Iam very grateful for her assistance and the ready cooperation of Lawrence Nicodemus, Blanche LaSartreand Margaret Stensgar.226As with Moses-Columbian, stress resolves a considerable amount of variation, as can beseen from Figure 6.57.Coeur d'Alene Stressed Vowels-2500^-2000^-1500^-1000F2(Hz)Spkr: L. NicodemusFigure 6.57: Coeur d'Alene stressed vowelsPrevious work on Coeur d'Alene, starting with Reichard's own analysis in her1938 grammar, identifies the set of uvulars, pharyngeals and the retracted apicals /r,r7 asa natural class for the purpose of stating a rule of regressive harmony (see Reichard1938:561). In the literature on Coeur d'Alene, this class of consonants is termed 'faucals',although I have extended the term to refer to the class of post-velars as it is phonolologi-cally constituted throughout Interior Salish. Sloat's (1966) thesis continues to group fau-cals as a class, using the acoustic features [+grave, -diffuse]. This grouping is acceptedby Johnson (1975) who uses the SPE features [-high, +back] to classify faucals. Cole(1987) uses an articulator node Tongue Root which dominates a feature [advanced tongue227root]; Doak (1989) uses a fourth node Pharyngeal and spreads [-high, +back] to achieveharmony effects; Bessell (1990) argues for the spread of a fourth node Tongue Root withno feature spreading; Doak (1992) uses a fourth node Pharyngeal to characterize harmonyprocesses, the presence of which implies the dorsal features [-high, +back].36There are several sources of evidence for the class of faucals in Coeur d'Alene.The major ones are morpheme structure constraints and two harmony processes. Thus, itis argued here that access to a fourth node is required in order to express a morphemestructure constraint which excludes faucals from prefixes. In the case of harmony pro-cesses, it is argued that Regressive Faucal Harmony (a R—>L harmony triggered by fau-cals) is the spread of this fourth node and that Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony(a L—>R spread) is triggered by a subset of roots characterized by a floating TongueRoot node. The analysis presented here also pursues the analogy between Interior Salishharmonies and African ATR systems. The Coeur d'Alene data indicate that given thepresence of the Tongue Root node its phonetic manifestation is that of retraction. Unlessotherwise noted, all data are taken from Reichard (1938) and (1939).The major process examined in this section I term Regressive Faucal Harmony.37Regressive Faucal Harmony in Coeur d'Alene targets all vowels preceding a faucalconsonant in a root or a suffix, with some complications regarding prefix vowels (to bediscussed below). The rule of Regressive Faucal Harmony is formalized as (22) (Doak1989, 1992, Besse11 1990, Remnant 1990).36Clearly, considerable effort has been expended on developing an understanding of Coeur d'Aleneharmonies. In particular I note the contributions made by Sloat (1966, 1975, 1980) and Doak (1989, 1992).Doak (1992) has developed a comprehensive analysis of Coeur d'Alene harmony cast in currentframeworks of feature geometry and underspecification, and parts of the discussion of Coeur d'Alenepresented here owe a great deal to her work. My purpose here in considering the Coeur d'Alene data insome detail is primarily to construct theoretical arguments for a fourth node in Interior Salish, and toconsider what segments are characterized by it. From the point of view of comparative Salishan studies, acareful discussion of the Coeur d'Alene harmony data facilitates comparison of whatever reflexes the otherInterior languages may have of the same processes.37The process is usually just termed 'regressive harmony', but 'Regressive Faucal Harmony' has theadvantage of identifying the class of triggers, in distinction to what is usually called 'progressive harmony'but which I term 'Progresive Pharyngeal Harmony'. In this latter case the (historic) trigger is alsoidentified.228XPlaceI Tongue Rootm' n'gwk'wxwWI S'wcf q'WX Xw"-t (22) Regressive Faucal Harmony6.2.4.1 Morpheme structure constraintsThe first indication that faucals are a class is that /r, r, q, qw, q', q'w, x, xw, Cw,S'w/ are systematically absent from prefix morphemes.38 In (23) all of the consonantswhich do not occur in prefixes are blocked in. Faucals are identified within this class bydouble-outlining.(23) Coeur d'Alene prefix constraintsLabial Alveolar^Velar Uvular^Pharyngeal Glottalkw^q qw229As can be seen from (23), some consonants under the Labial, Coronal and Dorsalplace nodes are permitted in prefixes, suggesting that individual omissions within theseclasses are not due to Place specifications at least. The class of faucals is distinct inprefix constraints in that no faucal of any kind is permitted. This suggests that the gap is381 offer the prefix facts as suggestive, without making strong claims for faucal classhood based on theirdistribution in affixes. The isolation of faucals as a class though, is firmly supported by other evidence, asdiscussed in following sections.Labial AlveolarP^t^c^6d .1,^C,s 1m n 1 ym' n' 1' y'Velarkwgwk'wxwww'Uvular^Pharyngeal Glottalq qWcf 1 q 'w IX Xw2hsystematic. The restriction against faucals in prefixes holds for all Interior Salishlanguages.The constraint against faucals in prefixes does not apply to roots or suffixes. Ithas been noted that pharyngeals and /r, rt/ are unique in being confined to rootmorphemes only, but uvulars are not subject to such restrictions. They occur in bothroots and suffixes. The segments which do not appear in suffixes are blocked in in (24).(24) Coeur d'Alene suffix constraints230This distribution of excluded suffix segments can be contrasted to the situationwith prefixes. While it is true that in prefixes other segments besides faucals are notfound, that is /y', w, w', m', p', b, c', t', d, 1, "§, k'w, xw/, the entire class of faucals issystematically absent in prefixes.6.2.4.2 Root patternsReichard (1939) lists about 800 C1VC2(C3) roots. Within these roots there arerestrictions on what vowel may appear if C2 or C3 is a faucal. In general, any of the threephonemic vowels /i, u, Ei may appear in root morphemes. Roots with [a] and [o] alsooccur in Coeur d'Alene, but they will be shown to have underlying faucal features and sodo not weaken the observation that in non-faucal roots only Ti, E, u/ are found.(25) C1VC2(C3) roots: C2, C3 not faucalCiC(C)^208CuC(C)^89CC(C)^222C3 C(C)^13Ca C (C)^50There are no roots with a faucal in C2 or C3 containing either of the two high vowels inthe inventory: /i, u/. It will be shown later that high vowels in prefixes uniquely resistretraction from roots containing a faucal.(26) C1VC2(C3) : C2 or C3 = faucalCE C(C)^37C3 C (C)^17CaC(C)^142CiC(C)^0CuC(C)^0Of the CIVC2(C3) roots where C2 is a faucal, the distribution within faucals is as in (27)where the letters R, Q and c stand for the r-series, the uvular, and the pharyngeal seriesrespectively.^(27) CVR(C) CVQ(C)^CVCQ^CV(C)CER 3^CEQ 18^CECQ 5^CET 11CoR 5 C3Q 9^CoCQ 3^CoS 0CaR 38 CaQ 60^CaCQ 29 CaT 15The observation to be drawn from the distribution of high vowels and faucalconsonants (i.e. that only /r,r7, uvulars and pharyngeals prohibit the occurrence of highvowels in a root) is that faucals function as a class. Laryngeals do not pattern withfaucals for the purposes of the constraint against high vowels in a faucal root.2316.2.4.3 Regressive Faucal harmonyThe root patterns discussed above are closely related to a phonological processsometimes termed retraction due to the resultant vowel qualities, or regressive harmonydue to the right to left direction of spread. I use the term Regressive Faucal Harmony soas to identify the class of triggering segments.As mentioned, previous work on Coeur d'Alene, starting with Reichard(1938:561), identifies faucals as a natural class for the purpose of stating the rule ofRegressive Faucal Harmony. Faucal consonants trigger an alternation of vowels inmorphemes to their left, such that Iii> [c/a]; /u/ > [3]; /e/ > [a].39 The effect of this withinroots has already been discussed. However, since roots are the only morphemes in whichall the faucals can occur it is necessary to look for the effects of regressive harmony onprefixes to see if faucals act as a class in triggering Regressive Faucal Harmony acrossmorpheme boundaries.The /E/> [a] alternation is attested in three locative prefixes which are alwaysfound left-adjacent to the root (/et-/ 'above, over'; /cen-/ 'under'; /mcl'-/ beside'). Thereare also two directional prefixes ( /te-/ 'thither' and /tep-/ 'on the way' ) which occur to theimmediate left of locative prefixes and also take an [a] vowel when the root contains afaucal in C1, C2 or C3 position.40 The positions of directional and locative prefixesareunderlined in the transitive completive predicate template in (28).(28) Coeur d'Alene predicate template (transitive completive)Object- Subject- Is/ NominalizertAspect- DIR-LOC4ROOT-Suffixes]Full details of the variation in harmonic alternates of /i/ are discussed in section 6.2.4.4.40There is one exception to the 17 examples of the c—a alternation in these 5 prefixes, and that occurs with/tst-/ 'above, over' in conjunction with the root itar 'untie'. Of the 51 examples of these suffixes in non-harmony contexts, there is one occurrence of it transcribed by Reichard with [a]. There are other potentialcandidates among prefixes with /c/ for alternation with [a] (the article /4c-/; the future aspect gc+-/; thenegative /nc7-/) but in these cases there are large numbers of exceptions. The discussion of prefix retractionhere presented is based on data without a disconcerting degree of variability, but further work is clearlyrequired.232Of interest is that no prefix occuring to the left of aspectual prefixes ever occurswith [a], even if it appears left-adjacent to the root in the absence of intervening prefixes.The maximal domain of Regressive Faucal Harmony is highlighted in bold andbracketted.It is also the case that only Is/ > [a] alternations are attested in prefixes. /u!> [3]and /i/> [s/a] alternations do not occur, despite the fact that there are locative anddirectional prefixes with /i, u/ in the same environments which trigger the Is/ > [a]alternation. The resistance of /i, u/ to Regressive Faucal Harmony occurs only in theapplication of the process to prefixes, not in roots or suffixes. The domain restriction onRegressive Faucal Harmony in combination with the isolation of prefixal /i, u/ as opaquesuggests there may be two applications of the harmony rule: one to the stem domain(suffixes plus root)41 and a second application to what I will here term the word domain,namely the stem and specific prefix positions. Czaykowska-Higgins (in preparation)proposes that the regressive spread of the fourth node in Columbian likewise reapplies toaffect prefixes. To the best of my knowledge there is no other evidence motivating whatI have termed the word domain in Coeur d'Alene besides the retraction phenomenamentioned. There is however, considerable evidence for the stem domain, since it isreferenced for stress, Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony and the morphologicalglottalization of resonants.Regardless of the cyclicity (or not) of Regressive Faucal Harmony, and despitethe restrictions noted on prefix alternations, it remains the case that members of the classof faucals when present in CI, C2 or C3 position consistently trigger Regressive FaucalHarmony on directional and locative prefixes with an /s/ vowel. The resistance of /i, u/ to41 See Czaykowska-Higgins (1992) for a discussion of domains in Moses-Columbia Salish and evidencefor what she terms the stem domain and the word domain. It is also possible, as suggested to me by M.D.Kinkade, that at least some prefix [i, ti] may be excluded from Regressive Faucal Harmony effects if theyare underlying glides /y, w/. Vocalization of these glides would then be a late process, occuring afterRegressive Harmony. In support of the hypothesis that some prefix /i, u/ are glides, there is attestedglide—vowel alternation in the prefix hii-/hy- meaning 'the one who'. A similar resistance to RegressiveHarmony is found in the suffix =y2qs 'nose, beak', presumably for the same reason (Doak 1989, 1992).233spreading of the Tongue Root node is found in several other Interior Salish languages, tobe discussed further in section 6.2.6.To illustrate prefixal Regressive Faucal Harmony, consider the data in (29) and(30). (29a, 30a) show the form taken by retractable prefixes attached to roots which donot contain a faucal consonant. Forms in (29b, 30b) show the alternation of /s!> [a] inthe same prefixes attached to roots containing a faucal. /2,h/ in roots do not triggerharmony on the /s/ prefix vowel (29a.i, ii; 30a.ii).(29) /Et-/ 'on a surface/object broader than subject; above; over'a. Non-harmony forms:i) 680/2Em-is-n-t-s^LOC-4one sits-be in act of-TRANS -3OBJ-3SUBJarSEmaanc] 'he sat on it'234ii) 6Et4pu? 4=itkwe?LUtpu24itkweliii) 6£nlyilixw=ine?-n-cutREfflyil'xwene2ncut]b. Harmony forms:i) 6st4xwir-is-n-t-sagixwera sandii) Et4tel'q=inE2 -n-t-m[cttal'qinE2ntam]iii) 68t-xel=ilup-nELQIXElilupan](30) /cEn-/ 'under, offa. Non-harmony forms:i) cEn44Ec'-p[claigep]ii) cen42im-Et-n-t[cm? imEtant]LOC-4bubble/foam=water'bubbling on the surface of water'LOC4cover with blanket-on-TRANS-REFL'he covered himself with a blanket'LOC-4step over-be in act of-TRANS-3013J-3SUBJ'he stepped over him'LOC-4step on-over-3PASSIVE COMPLETIVE'he was stamped on'LOC41ay evenly edge to edge-foundation-thatwhich'floor'LOC-4string breaks-without volition'string breaks'LOC-4trykause-doubtful-TRANS-2SUBJ 3OBJIMPERATIVEWait for him!'235iii) cic-cen4n'ufxw^LOC-LOC-4enter[cic.aftlixw]^'he went in under hither'b. Harmony forms:i) t-cen4swel-n-t-m[tmCwaantam]ii) cerniTEc=iple? -n[canfEcipls?an]iii) s-ccrniq'cy-n-cut[scsmq'Eyanctit]?-LOC4close(?)-3PASSIVE COMPLETIVE'it was closed offLOC-4tie=attachment-that which'fishline'NOM-LOC4design-TRANS-REFL'picture; self-designing under'From this it can be seen that prefixes, like roots, show /i, E, u/ as unpredictable,but [a] as predictable from Regressive Faucal Harmony. There are no cases of [3] inprefixes since the vowel does not occur phonemically, and since /i, u/ in prefixes areunaffected by harmony, there are no instances of i—> [s/a]; /u/—>[3]. (31) illustratesthe resistance of /i, u/ in prefixes to Regressive Faucal Harmony.(31) a. Locative prefix with /u/: no alternation before faucalgunimaq'w=dlqw^under 4objects lie-long object'he laid them under the ledge'gur \lq'wanp'-man-c3t=alqw under4go out of sight-use-REFL-long object'he hid them behind base of tree'b. Directional prefix with /i/: no alternation before faucal2u1'-giqqwer-stus^again-before41ight-3/3 CUSTOMARY'first he lighted it again as he had before'Furthermore, the identification of faucals as a class for the purposes of RegressiveFaucal Harmony leads to the prediction that individual class members will behave asretractors. This prediction can be tested since uvulars appear in suffixes (recall thatpharyngeals and /r, r'/ are confined to roots). As predicted, the presence of uvulars insuffixes triggers Regressive Faucal Harmony on preceding vowels, whether those vowelsare in preceding suffixes or in the root. Thus, the targets of Regressive Faucal Harmonycan be several morphemes distant from the triggering consonant, as in [?cile=afp=alqw],lcinnikinnick bush', from the underlying form Mil6=s4p=s1qw/. To further illustrate theprocess, the forms in (32a, 33a, 34a, 35a) give the root with its stressed phonemic vowel,while (32b, 33b, 34b, 35b) show the effect of regressive harmony on the same root withstress retained. The i—e alternation is found in (32), i—a in (33), s—a in (34), u—o in (35).(32) /cis 'be long'a. Non-harmony formq6A-t^.Vbe long-has characteristic innately[tat] 'it is long'b. Harmony form^i-8t-e'a+eil=qin^??-REDUP-be long-head/top[t6864qan]^'he has long hair'46A=alqw^qbe long-long stiff object[tt.talqw] 'he is tall'(33) qdalima. Non-harmony formdalim^'he galloped hither'b.Harmony form^i—a'O'‘Idalim=alqw^attatched to-qbe long-long stiff object[t'allsimalqw]^'train'(34) *slew 'one lies'a.Non-harmony formqt'slew-n-t-s "lone lies-TRANS -3OBJ-3SUBJ[aKwanc]^'he laid one down'b.Harmony form^s—a2 sc-hirolfek'w=qin ASPECT-LOC-one lies-head/top[?anaLwqa n]^'it lies on top'236237(35) 4kus^'curl, be curled'a.Non-harmony form 2 Ec-ni2 4kus=c1stsn ASPECT-hair4curl-forehead[2 cni2 Isisclscn]^'hair curls back from forehead'b.Harmony form^11~32c-t4kus=qin^ASPECT-on/part of4 be curled-head/top[2atksisqn] 'his hair is curled'To summarize: from the discussion of vowel distribution in C1VC2(C3) roots withneither C2 nor C3 a faucal, it is clear that phonemic root vowels are limited to /i, u, c/.The appearance of [a, a] and some [c] is conditioned by a following faucal within the rootor by a following suffix containing an uvular. In suffix morphemes the same is true: thatis, /i, u, El are unpredictable, whereas [c, o, a] are predictable from the presence of afaucal consonant either within the suffix itself, or in a suffix to its right. This results intwo vowel sets as in (36).(36) Phonemic Vowels^Conditioned vowels[E, 3, a]Under the analysis proposed here [c, o, a] are conditioned by the spread of thenode Tongue Root from the class of faucal consonants onto the phonemic vowels. Thisis formalized in section 6.2.4.4. Before turning to formal details I complete the paradigmof faucal effects on vowels by considering examples of Regressive Faucal Harmony onsuffix vowels.(37) and (38) show the full range of Regressive Faucal Harmony effects onsuffixes. (37a) shows the suffix /-ip/ when stressed but not followed by a faucal suffix.(37b) shows /-ip/ turning up as [-ap] when a faucal suffix follows.42 (38a/b) show thesame process with /-us/, which becomes [-as] under harmony conditions.421 have not been able to find examples of the /1/> [e] alternation in suffixes due to regressive harmony.(37) /=--ip/ 'bottom, after, beha. Non-harmony formi) /A16s=ip-n-t-s/[a4p6anc]ind'Algo-after-TRANS -30BJ-3SUBJ'he chases her'238ii) /2 sc-t-Alq'wEsu=ip=ilt/[2 atq'wa sw'igsl't]b. Harmony formi) = qin/[ysl'xwg.pqa n]ii) /1C11-46E=ip=stq/[ku6aVI2stq]ASPECT-attached to-qbunch-behind-offspring'hen has a brood of chickens'Alcover with fabric-behind-head'cape; that which covers back of head'2SUBJ-4accompany-behind-in opposition to'you followed against orders'(38) /-us/ 'orifice, eye, face, fire'a. Non-harmony formi) /42ip'=us-n7^/wipe-face-that whichn] 'towel; wipe face'b. Harmony formi) /§-hin46'Em=us=Elpqw/ Nom-LOC4be surface-orifice- mouth insideDa neamlialpqw]^'inside of mouth and throat'An interesting aspect of the vowel alternations triggered by post-velars in Coeurd'Alene is that all suffixes with uvulars surface regularly with an [a] vowel.43 (39) listsall the suffixes in Coeur d'Alene with a post-vocalic uvular.44(39) Suffixes with uvulars=axan 'arm' =a stq 'in opposition to'=aqs 'breast' =alqw 'long object'=afqixw 'breath' =al'qs 'clothes'=a sq'it 'day, sky, atmosphere' =alqs 'end'=alpqw 'mouth inside, oral cavity' =alq'iw't 'shoulder'6.2.4.4 Regressive Faucal Harmony formalizedThe geometries proposed in (I) for the class of faucals interact very simply withRegressive Faucal Harmony as it has been explicated in preceding sections.To illustrate this I turn to final examples of Regressive Faucal Harmony in (40)which show that labial, coronal and velar consonants are transparent to the process.45(40a.i-iii) give the underlying forms of labial, coronal and velar roots in the non-harmonycontext. (40b.i-iii) show these same roots affected by Regressive Faucal Harmony.(40) Regressive Faucal Harmonya. Non-harmonyi) Labial roota) 2e4lup^RESULTATIVE-4dry[2c11142] 'it exists having been dried'43In some of the Interior languages the vowel of these suffixes has shifted to /e/ as part of a general /a/ > /e/movement. This results in Mekepmxcin /=el'qs/ 'clothes': /=esq't/ 'days', for example. The vowel of thesesuffixes in 1■110kepmxcin often alternates with [a] if the stem final consonant is a post-velar or /1, 17.However, there are no such alternations in the Coeur d'Alene reflexes of these suffixes: only the vowel [a]is found.44 The suffix =y2qs/-ikis 'nose, beak' is the only exception to this generalization. It is assumed here thatglide vocalization occurs after Regressive Harmony, so that [i, u] from [y, w] are not subject to retraction.(see Doak 1992).45Faucals can be assumed to block Regressive Faucal Harmony, but it is a moot point in so far as theblocking faucal will itself trigger harmony on preceding vowels.239240b) s-oleem=elps^NOM-on/part of4surface-back of neck[stajnelps] 'mane'ii) Coronal roota) wlqwiicMOWiii) Velar roota) 4puxw-n-t-s[pgxwanc/b) 4fekw-n-t-s[t'Ocwanc]b. Harmony formsi) Labial transparencya) 2c41up=qiin-c[chpqanc]b. sq.alem=iilqs-n[snlmalqsan]ii) Coronal transparencya. 4qwilc=qi inLegigqan]b. ^46i'§-iilqw[Walqw]ABSOLUTIVE4warm'it's warm'"hong-innate charactersitic'it is long'"/blow-TRANS-COMPLETIVE'he blew on it'-gone lies-TRANS -COMPLETIVE'he laid one down'ASPECT-4dry-head/top -COMPLETIVE'she dried his hair'NOM4surface=end-that which'leg'4warm=head'hat''‘Ilong=long object'he is tall'iii) Velar transparencya) t4puxw=qiin-c[tlitcwqanc]b) 2 c-hrolt'sk'w=qiin[2anak'wqan]??--Jblow=head-COMPLETNE'he blew on her head'ASP-LOC41ay one=head'it lies on top'Given the representations proposed in (1), the simplest description of RegressiveFaucal Harmony would specify spreading the Tongue Root node that faucals hold incommon. However, if 'Spread Tongue Root' is the rule of Regressive Faucal Harmony,and locally adjacent segments are targetted then we would expect the node Tongue Rootto dock onto velars and so produce uvulars. But as seen in (40b.iii) velars maintain theirintegrity in the environment of Tongue Root spreading. In order to capture these facts,and the exclusive targetting of vowels, I propose that Regressive Faucal Harmony is arule of Maximal Scansion (Archangeli & Pulleyblank 1986; 1987). Regressive FaucalHarmony will therefore scan the level of syllabic structure which gives access to vocalicnuclei in order to identify its target, rather than the level of the triggering node or thefeature which spreads (Minimal Scansion: Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1987, Shaw1991a). This has the effect of restricting the target of Regressive Faucal Harmony tovowels while still permitting a consonant to be the trigger, as desired. Therefore (41)below will target vowels only and will not spread the Tongue Root node onto consonants.The transparency of velars is ensured since they have only a Dorsal node.(41) Regressive harmonyXPlace0 Tongue Root(41) is an iterative, right-to-left, maximal scansion rule. Based on (41), harmonicvowels will be distinguished from phonemic vowels by the added presence of the TongueRoot node with the interpretation [Retracted Tongue Root]. This requires someexplication.It has been mentioned several times previously that some his alternate with [2]while other Ii/'s alternate with [a]. This puzzling synchronic fact has an interesting and241regular historical explanation. In general, vowels undergoing the i—a alternation can betraced back to the Proto-Eastern Interior Salish vowel */a/ in the following ways:Cr [Coeur d'Alene] retained *u and *i, except that *i was lowered to e and *uto 3 before r, uvulars and pharyngeals. *a remained before these same backconsonants, and *a in such positions fell together with it as a. Otherwise *abecame Cr i (but still turns up as Cr a if a suffix containing a back consonantoccurs on a form).Kinkade and Sloat 1972:29Doak (1989, 1992) provides a synchronic account of this alternation through theuse of underspecification which reflects the fact that the vowel [i] has two sources." i1 isthe reflex of Proto-Eastern Interior Salish */a/. Phonemic vowels are represented thusfollowing (Doak 1992):(42) i1^i2^E^uhigh -backroundAs a consequence of (42), I take derived harmonic vowels to be represented asin (43).(43) Derived vowelshighbackroundAddition of Tongue Root > [RTR][a]^[E]^[a]^[3]46The high front vowel of North Slope Ifiupiaq, which likewise has two historical sources, alsodifferentiates itself phonologically. The so-called 'strong /if, historically derived from Proto-Eskimo *i,triggers a palatalization process that 'weak lit, derived from Proto-Eskimo *a does not (MacLean 1986:19).Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1992) analyse similar facts in Barrow Ifitipiaq. Piggott (1971:19) discusses asimilar case in Menomini (Algonquian) where [e] derived from Proto-Algonquian *i triggers palatalization,whereas [e] derived from Proto-Alqonquian *c does not.242I note here that the redundancy rules required by (42) cannot apply in astraightforward way to derived Tongue Root vowels. In particular, one has to assume aconstraint of the sort *[+high, TR], where TR implies [-ATR] or [RTR]. This sort ofconstraint is common in many African ATR systems, where it is often expressed*[high, -ATR] (Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1989, 1992). The interaction of redundancyrules with harmony and non-harmony vowels is considered in section 6.3.Based on Doak's underspecification and the rule of Regressive Faucal Harmonygiven in (41), derivations proceed as illustrated, (44a-c). In these derivations only thosefeatures and nodes at or below the level of the Place Node are represented. N denotes thenucleus of a syllable. Regressive Faucal Harmony on prefix elements is not represented.(44)a. Labial rooti n- cPLACELABDORTR[cl5pqanc] 'she dried his hair'b. Coronal rootN 243'‘IqwPLACECORDORTRii [qwdcqan]^'hat'c. Velar root244ic-hn qt'PLACELABDORTRk'w[? ant'dk'wqan] 'it lies on top'To summarize, this section has derived support for a fourth node (termedTongue Root) from several phonological sources: a Morpheme Structure Constraintexcluding faucals from prefixes, vowel patterns in roots and Regressive FaucalHarmony. It was suggested that the presence of the Tongue Root node characterizes theclass of faucals which is referenced in Coeur d'Alene and that the vowel qualitiesresulting from the spread of the Tongue Root node are basically [retracted tongue root]versions of the phonemic vowels. The implications of the resulting representations aremore fully considered in section 6.3.The application of Regressive Faucal Harmony in the other Interior Salishlanguages reveals a parameter with some theoretical significance. The major variationsfound are (i) in the domain of harmony and (ii) the opacity of /i/ in Spokane andKalispel. The behaviour of /i/ in harmonies analysed here as spreading of the TongueRoot node has a parallel in African ATR systems and the spread of Arabic emphasis.Section 6.2.5 explores this variation and argues that these parallels strengthen theanalysis of Interior Salish harmonies as essentially Tongue Root rather thanDorsal/height harmonies. The specifics of this proposal are presented in section 6.4.6.2.5 Regressive Faucal Harmony in other Interior Salish languagesOne way to view Regressive Faucal Harmony as it operates in Coeur d'Alene isthat it phonologizes the local phonetic effects of adjacent post-velars as examined inChapter 3 into a long-distance harmony. However, not all of the Interior languages havephonologized phonetic faucal effects as Coeur d'Alene has. For instance, Shuswap47 doesnot show vowel alternations from faucals across an intervening segment or acrossmorpheme boundaries, (45).(45) Shuswap: No Regressive Faucal Harmony/e/x\lccr.-dp-tn^'saucer'4ccf=dp=qn^'be hit on the head'/u/olmtly-st-s^'to bend (esp. wood for dipnet or shelter)'mtly=qs 'hoop of net'/i/'?''take off bark'Table 6.32 charts the effects of faucals across Interior Salish based on informationin available sources. There are several variations of interest: (i) all languages show localphonetic effects from post-velars, (ii) long-distance effects such as seen in Coeur d'Alenedo not occur in all languages, (iii) while the languages of these two groups target allvowels such that /i, s, U/> [s/a, a, a], Spokane and Kalispel both have long-distanceRegressive Faucal Harmonies in which the high front vowel /i/ does not participate.Finally, van Eijk (1985) notes that Lillooet /2/ is the only consonant which is transparentto faucal effects which otherwise depend on melodic adjacency.47Data from Kuipers (1974, 1989).245Table 6.32: Interior Salish Regressive Harmony onto roots or suffixes1 Type^Language I Triggers I Targets I Output I Blockers^Ii Colville uvulars^andpharyngeals/i, u, a/ [C, o, a] All CMs-Cm uvulars^andpharyngealsTi, 11, a, a/ [E, 3, a, Al All CNie?kep-mxcinuvulars,pharyngeals,z,z'/i, u, e, a/ [ev, o, m, A] All CLillooet uvulars,pharyngeals,z,z'/i, u, ce/ [E, o, a] All C except /2/;/z,z'/ do notretract Li!Shuswap uv ul ars^andpharyngeals/i, u, e/ [t/s,/a, 3] All Cii Coeurd'Aleneuvulars,pharyngeals, r,r°/ii, i2, u, a/ [a, E, 3,0] None:^long-distanceiii Kalispel uvulars^(Vogtdoes't transcribepharyngeals)/e, u/ [a, o] /i/;^long-distanceSpokane uvulars^andpharyngeals/e, u/ [a, o] /i/;^long-distanceI suggest that variation in the domain of Regressive Faucal Harmony ischaracterized by adjacency requirements between trigger and target and whether or notthe rule is iterative. In those languages (Type-i) which do not show long-distanceRegressive Faucal Harmony, local application of the rule requires melodic adjacencybetween Tongue Root trigger and vowel target. In such cases the rule is not iterative andmay simply be a late co-articulatory process.48 Type-ii and iii languages show long-48As pointed out to me by M. Liberman, retraction in these cases may be a property of syllable rimes,although it is difficult to show this conclusively in the absence of a more complete understanding ofsyllable structure in the relevant languages.246distance faucal effects. The rule in such cases is iterative. There do not appear to be anycases of consonants affected by any language's version of Regressive Faucal Harmony,except purely locally. Targets in long-distance application the rule are vowels.49However, there is some variation as to which vowels are targetted. It is suggested that thebehaviour of /i/ can be accounted for by appeal to general constraints on the interaction ofthe feature [Retracted Tongue Root] with specifications for height and frontness(Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1992). It is in this respect that the parallel between AfricanATR systems and Semitic emphasis can be drawn.I turn now to examine the evidence for the exclusion of /i/ from Regressive FaucalHarmony in Spokane and Kalispel. Regressive Faucal Harmony in Spokane and Kalispelis Type ii in the sense of being long-distance, but differs from Coeur d'Alene (the otherType ii language) in excluding /i/.6.2.5.1 Spokane Regressive Faucal Harmony (Type iii)The appearance of most [a, o} in Spokane is conditioned by a post-velar.5° Thevowels [a, 3] appear before a post-velar obstruent later in the word, or else in specificharmony roots (Carlson 1972, Carlson 1980, Carlson and Flett 1989). As a consequencethe phonemic vowel system can be considered /i, u, e/ of which /i/ is isolated as the onlyvowel failing to undergo a productive process of long-distance Regressive FaucalHarmony similar to that found in Coeur d'Alene. Thus, while /i/ in Spokane is recordedby Carlson (1972) to have 'a very low variant' before post-velars, this effect is dependent49There is some variable evidence for retraction of prefix consonants in Lillooet and Columbian.50Retracted or Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony roots in Spokane-Kaslispel with [a,3] are discussed later.The Spokane vowel inventory is /i, e, u/. The consonantal inventory is given below (Carlson 1972).Labial Alveolar^Velar Uvular Pharyngeal^Glottal1)^t^c^6^kw^q qw^?P'^t'^c' X'^6'^k'w^q' q'ws i xw^X Xw^ hm^n^r 1 y,^w 1 Swm'^n'^r' l'^Y^w' 1' I'w247on melodic adjacency. This adjacency restriction does not apply to prevent thealternation of /e/ to [a] and /u/ to [3] which is conditioned by both adjacent and non-adjacent post-velars. The range of attested vowel alternation is shown in (46). In theseexamples the root in its stressed, non-harmonic form is shown first, followed by forms inwhich Regressive Faucal Harmony has applied. (46f,g) illustrate the opacity of /i/ toharmony.(46) Spokane Regressive Faucal Harmonya.i) -Jc'dr-t^'It's cold'ii) henqc'a2r=p=6s=lqw=p-i 'He has a sore throat'^/e/> [a]248b.i) .Nledc'-n^'I straightened (the wrinldes)ii) s-n4t'+t'ac'a2=qn^'starched sunbonnet'c.i) p'ti X '-n^'I oiled it'ii) 6'4'6 X '=qn-tn^'hair oil'd.i) hi 4s$t'^'It's stretched'ii) s+seit=lqs 'sweater'e.i) 4stixw-n^'I recognize him'ii) n4s6xw=me2=qn=cn^'I recognize your voice'^/u!> [o]Li) hi\kfic'^'It's tough and twisty'ii) s-n4q1c1=qn 'gizzard'^* Ii/ > [e]g.i) nqsixw+xw^'It seeped into a vessel'ii) 6.NIsixw=qn 'I poured it on his head'^* /i/> [e]The Proto-Eastern Interior Salish reflexes of Spokane /i, u, e/ are */i, u, a/, with*la shifting to /e/ except before post-velars. Proto-Eastern Interior Salish */a/ shifted toIi/ in Spokane, except before post-velars where it is retained as [a] (Kinkade and Sloat1972, Kinkade and Thompson 1974). This may underlie the reluctance of Spokane Ii/ <*/a/ to pattern with /e, u/ in undergoing long-distance effects from post-velars, but sincethere do not seem to be any cases of /V being affected it seems that /i/ < */i/ likewise doesnot permit the Tongue Root node to spread to it.6.2.5.3 Kalispel Regressive Faucal HarmonyKalispel (Vogt 1940) shows the same resistance of /V to the regressive spread ofthe node Tongue Root, (47).51(47) Kalispel Regressive Faucal Harmonya.i) i6in-qqw6cii) A/qwdc=qnb.i) Wptimii) ine-s-nAlp6m=qn-ic) iqqwinii) hiqwin=lqs'I am warm''hat''It is brown''I am smoking skins''it is green''he has a green shirt'/e/ > [a]/u/ > [o]*/j/> [e]Given the assumptions in the analysis of Coeur d'Alene Regressive FaucalHarmony where the unspecified vowel of the system, /ii/, becomes [a] under harmony, ananalysis of Spokane and Kalispel /i/ as underspecified predicts it too should harmonize to[a]. This prediction is incorrect. Spokane-Kalispel /i/ does not participate in RegressiveFaucal Harmony at all. As a consequence I suggest that the resistance of /V to RegressiveFaucal Harmony in Kalispel and Spokane indicates an incompatability between51Kalispel (Vogt 1940)Labial^CoronalP^t^cc'^X66'VelarkwkwUvular Pharyngealq qWq' (eVGlottal?S^4- t xw X XW hm n^1 Y w T TwIn' n' l' y' w' T' T'w249specifications for faucals and the high front vowel. It is presumably a case of *[-back,+high, RTR]. I delay a detailed account of the exceptionality of /V until the full extent ofvowel behaviour under the influence of a spreading fourth node can be assessed. Thisnecessitates consideration of the other pervasive harmony process in Interior Salish,Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony.6.2.6 Progressive Pharyngeal HarmonyAs noted, Regressive Faucal Harmony is not the only process providingmotivation for a fourth node in Interior Salish. A second harmony, termed ProgressivePharyngeal Harmony is examined in several Interior Salish languages by Mattina (1979).The harmony targets stressed vowels and conditions a range of alternations familiar fromRegressive Faucal Harmony. In fact, the vowel qualities derived by both RegressiveFaucal and Progressive Pharyngeal harmonies are identical in some languages. If, assuggested, a spreading Tongue Root node is responsible for the alternations found inRegressive Faucal Harmony then the same node may be assumed relevant in ProgressivePharyngeal Harmony. The parallel between the two harmonies is extended with thediscovery that /i/ can resist both processes.Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony is distinct from Regressive Faucal Harmony inthat the trigger is a floating Tongue Root node—as such, segmental faucals do not tirggerthis process. Mattina (1979) presents historical arguments for pharyngeals as the triggerfor the process. For Colville, Mattina suggests that the conditioning pharyngeal is presentin the relevant roots. There is also evidence for the spread of the Tongue Root node to asubset of coronal segments in Nie2kepmxcin, Lillooet, Moses-Columbian and to a lesserextent, Shuswap. This motivates a rule of Minimal Scansion in these languages since allsegments within a given domain are potential targets (Remnant 1990, Czaykowska-Higgins, in preparation).250In terms of segmental effects, five variations of Progressive Pharyngeal Harmonyare attested: (i) all vowels become [a] (Colville); (ii) /i/ and /e/ share [a/a] as theirharmony alternant and /u/ becomes [o/o] (Kalispel, Spokane, some dialects of Okanagan);(iii) all vowels have a specific harmony altemant such that /i, e, u/ > [e, a, o] (Shuswap,Lillooet; Coeur d'Alene adds /ii/—> [o]); (iv) /i/ is resistant to harmony (1■1401cepmxcin,Moses-Columbian); (v) some coronal consonants may be affected (Lillooet,Islie?kepmxcin, Moses-Columbian, Shuswap).251The descriptions of Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony as it affects vowel qualityare summarized in Table 6.33. Type-v languages (those with consonantal effects) cutacross types (iii) and (iv) and are not tabulated here, although those languages whichtarget consonants are noted.Table 6.33: Interior Salish Progressive Pharyngeal HarmonII Type I Language Triggers I Targets I Output I Blockers^Ii Colville Some ^rootswith I-ca-I; /a/Stressed /i,u,a/ /i,u,a/ -> [ca]; Tin root deletes.Noneii Kalispel Roots with [a,o] Stressed /i,u,e/ /i,u,e/ > [a,o,a] NoneSpokane Roots with [a,o] Stressed /i,u,e/ /i,u,e/ > [a,o,a] Noneiii Coeur d'Alene Roots^with[E,3/a]Stressed /i1, j2,u/52[s/a, o] NoneShuswap Roots^withnegativemorphemeStressed /i,u,e/;/s,e//i,u,e/ -> [s,o,a]/S, a -> [s, c]NoneLillooet Roots^with[E,0,a4];adversativemorphemeStressedii,u,m,a/;/s,c,1,17ii,u,x,a/^->[E,o,a,A];/s, c,1,17^->[s,c1,11Noneiv Nfe?kepmxcin Retracting roots /u,e, a//s, c//u,e,a/ > [o,a,A]Is, c/-> [s,C]/i/Columbian Roots^with /i,u,a/; some a;/s,c,1,1',n//i ,u , a, a/^->/s,c,1,1',(n)/^->i >u > aIn formal terms, the general rule of Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony spreads tothe right a Tongue Root node from roots onto suffixes. The analysis pursued here derivesharmonic vowels by the addition of the Tongue Root node to the underlying featural52Recall that stressed /c/ does not occur in Coeur d'Alene suffixes. Hence the /c/ -->[n] alternation is notattested in suffixes.252representation of the target, as with Regressive Faucal Harmony. This aspect of theproposed analysis is directly analogous to standard derivations of [—ATR] vowels.Variation in vowel effects such as noted above in Table 6.33 are accounted for byunderspecification (the unspecifed vowel of a system is [a, a] under harmony) and byinteraction with the Grounding Conditions proposed by Archangeli and Pulleyblank(1992). Some spectrograms of Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony effects in Coeur d'Aleneand Colville can be found in Appendix B.In the following sections I deal first with the paradigm case as described byMattina (1979) for Colville. Under Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony in Colville, stressed/i, e, u/ > [Mat The discussion of Colville serves as an introduction to the process inKalispel, Spokane and Okanagan which are type (ii). Next I consider types (iii) and (iv).Type-iv re-introduces the opacity of fi/, which is stipulated for now.6.2.6.1 Type-i: Colville Progressive Pharyngeal HarmonyMattina describes what he calls Pharyngeal Movement in Colville as a processshifting the pharyngeal of certain roots to a position left-adjacent to a stressed suffixvowel.53 The suffix vowel subsequently lowers to a quality which Mattina records as [a],noting that it is 'homorganic with the (immediately preceding) inserted pharyngeal'(Mattina 1979:17).54 All vowels (/i, e, a)) are affected the same way. Examples aregiven in (48), with affected suffixes underlined. (48a) shows the root -qq'wTdy 'black'conditioning movement of the root pharyngeal to the left of stressed suffix vowels and53The Colville vowel inventory is /i, a, u/. The consonantal inventory is given below (Mattina 1973):Uvular Pharyngeal^Glottalq qw^2q' q`wX Xw^hC Cw1' T'w54Spectrographic work on Colville data from Charlie Quintasket indicates that Colville /a/ in theenvironment of pharyngeals is lower (has a higher Fl) than that found elsewhere, including in the contextof uvulars. See Appendix B of spectrograms.253Labial Coronal Velarp t c k kwP' t' c'^X k' kr's^+ x xwm n r^1 y wm' n' r'^1' y' w'subsequent lowering of that vowel to [a]. Examples are given of both /u/ and /i/ beingaffected. In (48b) the effect on stressed suffixes which already contain an /a/ vowel isillustrated. The stress condition is illustrated in (48c) where unstressed suffixes are notintruded on by a root pharyngeal and there is no subsequent alternation of vowel qualityto [a]. Unstressed vowels are subsequently deleted (or reduced to schwa). The stresscondition suggests that the foot is the relevant domain of Colville pharyngealmovement.55(48) Colville Pharyngeal Movement (Mattina 1979)Root Suffixa) .Vq'wCdy =lsctit ' q'way=lscSdt 'his clothes aredirty'=tis cfway=qa 'black man'=ic'a? ...qtway=qc'12 'I am very dirty'b) .VICat =xan la?-i-fet=xTdn 'he gets his feet wet'c) .Niq'ndy =xan ...q'wTay=xan-x 'Blackfeet'=alqs q'wTay=lqs 'priest (black robe)'(49) Attested Colville Pharyngeal Movement roots56X1 'bright,clear' (?) pTas 'scared'*cCam 'cover' pTat 'boil'sTay-lx 'they are noisy' c'Can 'tight'pTaw 'he ran down' *t'Sam 'suck'q'wTayxas'black''good'+Tat' 'wet'Colville Pharyngeal Movement is of particular interest because /i, a, u/—>[a].That is to say, all contrasts in the vowel system are neutralized to [a]. This suggests aprocess de-linking the underlying specifications of all vowels and substituting a pure55This was pointed out to me by both E. Czaykowska-Higgins and M. Liberman. Idsardi (1991) arguesthat glottalization in Shuswap references the positively circumscribed stress foot domain. It would appearthat Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony does the same.56*.forms which are not attested with root stress, and so the presence of the root pharyngeal is inferred.254Tongue Root vowel as derived by spread from the conditioning root pharyngeal. Thisparticular patterning does not occur elsewhere in Interior Salish and Colville does nothave a long-distance Regressive Faucal Harmony with which to compare the output ofProgressive Pharyngeal Harmony.57 However, note that we have here the class of highvowels /i, u/ interacting with harmony in a unique way, just as was discussed in thebehaviour of Coeur d'Alene prefix vowels vis-a-vis Regressive Faucal Harmony.25557The Colville post-velars do affect all left-adjacent vowels phonetically, as described in Chapter 2.Although long-distance Regressive Faucal Harmony is not noted for Colville there are some examples inMattina (1989) of what appears to be alternation of suffixal and root /i/ with [a] under the influence of auvular suffix. The alternation is not regular, but where it occurs /i/ > [a], not [a I know of no cases of /u/> [o] under the same circumstances.Non-harmony form^Harmony Form=ip^'base, bottom'^=ap=qin^'back of head'=ap=alqs 'bottom, tail end'=iple?^'handle' =ap1=-xn 'wing'k'n=iya?^'listen'^iwa k'n=aya?-qan^'He tried to listen'xwilam 'discard' s-x"al-qs^'garbage'kwi(n)-nt^'take St.'^s-kwan-xn 'slave'kwu c-kwdn-x-s^'He kidnapped me'The rule of Colville Pharyngeal Movement can be formalized as (50).58 Of interest hereis that these alternations are exactly those found in the Arabic ablaut patterns resultingfrom Guttural Lowering (section 4.1.1).(50) Colville Pharyngeal MovementPlace• • • VrlaceTongue Rootmot6.2.6.2 Type (ii): Spokane and KalispelIt was noted that Colville Pharyngeal Movement is unique in neutralizing allvowel contrasts to [a]. However, there is some dialectal variation on this. The Okanaganform for Colville q'way=Sas 'black man' is q'way=6s, thus introducing an /u/—> [No]alternation which is familiar from Regressive Faucal Harmony in Coeur d'Alene.59 Theresulting alternations are /i, e, u/—> [a/a, a/a, o/a]. The same alternations are found in58(50) shows the Tongue Root node specification of the root pharyngeal moving to the suffix stressedvowel, rather than the pharyngeal itself. Both M.D.Kinicade and P. Shaw have suggested to me thatPharyngeal Movement roots may have the conditioning pharyngeal in final position in the root, that is tosay, at the right edge. There is some evidence for this in the reduplication of Colville PharyngealMovement roots since the pharyngeal itself does not seem to be picked up by C1VC2- reduplicationtemplates.Root^ Reduplicated formsq'wfdy black'^ey_evidy^black, pl.'t-q'wy-q'w1dy=s^black garden currants'c'ian^'tight'^c'n-c'fan^'tight'sin 'tame' sn-sin-t 'tame, gentle'These data can be explained if the pharyngeal of Pharyngeal Movement roots is either in C3position or is an unlinked Tongue Root node. As such, neither would be included in the C VC2-reduplicative template. Furthermore, (50) as stated delinlcs the specifications on all vowels, /a/ included.While delinldng appears to be necessary for /i, u/, it is not obvious that the values for /a/ must be delinked.It is conceivable that /a/ in Colville is the unspecified vowel (historically, Proto */a/ became /a/ in Colville).If so, then the spread of the Tongue Root node is antagonistic to the features of /i, u/ only.59The distinction between the Colville form and the Okanagan form was pointed out to me by CharlieQuintasket.256Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony in Spokane and Kalispel, illustrated in (52, 53). As aconsequence, it would appear that Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony in these languages isnot a rule delinking vocalic specifications such as proposed for Colville. How might itdiffer? Consider first the most radical alternation of the harmony sets in Okanagan,Spokane and Kalispel, that of /i/—> [a/a]. This is not a maverick alternation though—recall that it occurs in Coeur d'Alene Regressive Faucal Harmony where hi!—> [a].Doak's (1992) analysis of this uses underspecification of fii/ to achieve the requiredharmonic vowel quality, i.e. [a]. The same analysis may be maintained for the Ii/—>[a/a] alternations examined here. There is some independent evidence in support of thisposition in the following considerations. Recall that Spokane-Kalispel /ifs are Sopaqueto Regressive Faucal Harmony, where it was suggested that an antagonism between[+high, -back] and the node Tongue Root is at play. The use of underspecification toexplain the /i/—>[a] alternation in Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony in the samelanguages minimally requires this harmony to apply before Regressive Faucal Harmonygiven that the latter harmony requires the specification of [+high] on Ii/ to account for itsopacity and the former requires underspecification for the feature [high]. In Coeurd'Alene, where there are some arguments for the ordering of the two harmonies, theevidence points to Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony preceding Regressive FaucalHarmony (Doak 1992). This is as appears to be required for Spokane-Kalispel, and itallows the possibility that unspecified feature values are filled in between the applicationof harmonies.The rule of Progessive Pharyngeal Harmony in Okanagan, Kalispel and Spokanecan be formalized as in (51), with no de-linking of vocalic features and the assumptionthat /i/ is an unspecified vowel at the time of harmony application. In these respects (51)parallels the Coeur d'Alene rule of Regressive Faucal Harmony. The status of the TongueRoot node as a floating autosegment in (51) is discussed fully in the analysis of Coeur257d'Alene in section 6.2.6.3. Data from Spokane and Kalispel illustrating the opacity of /i/follow.(51) Okanagan, Kalispel and Spokane Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony258 Tongue RootrootV1 Place1o Labial, etc.SpokaneThe underlying vowels of Spokane are /i, e, u/. I have found 69 roots with [a] and17 roots with [o] in Carlson and Flett (1989). None of these roots contains a followingpost-velar, which is otherwise the only context in which such vowel qualities are present,suggesting that they are potential harmony roots. Eighteen of the [a] roots and four of the[o] roots are onomatopoeic.6° Of the 51 non-onomatopoeic roots with [a, o], 17 arerecorded as retracting stressed suffix vowels. Seven others do not seem to affect stressedsuffix vowels.61 The remaining roots do not occur in a context that allows the prediction60Kuipers (1989) remarks that retracted roots tend to be associated with animal and plant names, soundsymbolism or strong emotive values. Examples of such roots in Spokane are:c'al'^'sound made by falling sticks'lay' 'sound of pan hitting floor'Cap'^'sound of flat-footed running'main' 'sound of gurgling stomach't'ac'^'sound of grasshopper'corn' 'sound of egg being smashed'4o^'sound of steady rain'61 These exceptions are:a) tpas6w'e?^'dogbells, metal harness ornaments'b) .Niwa-t-n'=e4p '^'buckbrush'c) s-Cgwttw-r=tis 'tears'd) -Nit'ap(i)^'shoot'e) liyac'm-s-t-es^'he made it fast'f) (2)alip 'he lost'g) t oM-m^'he shouted'There are no examples of forms (a, b, c) with a stressed root vowel to check the underlying qualityof the root vowel. It may be then, that these are not legitimate harmony roots. The cognate of (d) doesthat they are harmony roots to be tested. Of those roots with attested harmony affects, /e,u/ are lowered to [a, 3] just as with Regressive Faucal Harmony in Spokane as discussedin section 4.2.5.1. When /i/ is in a harmony context it alternates with [a]. I have foundthree cases of /ii > [a]62, none of /i/ > [e]. The stress condition noted in Colville andrelevant for Coeur d'Alene is respected in Spokane also. Consequently the rule targetsstressed vowels, and like Coeur d'Alene can target stressed vowels several morphemesdistant from the root.(52) Spokane Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony roots63Root^Suffixa) qp'c'^-es^ 'he lets his bowels go'64b) -en^n4p'e-n-t-An^'I poured in a gravy-likesubstance'-use?^p't'a-y'=.2^'newly born fish'-qin^s4piat'=qAn'^'tree moss gravy and cakes'trigger Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony in Coeur d'Alene but does not in Colville; the cognate of (e)retains a pharyngeal in Coeur d'Alene and Colville. The cognate of (f) is -NICal in Colville. None of theseroots trigger harmony in Colville or Coeur d'Alene. I know of no explanation why (g) does not behave asas harmony root, unless this is a case of /V resistance.62Two cases are on the suffix /=qin/ 'head' with the root .Vp't' ; the third is on the suffix /=cin/ 'mouth,language'. These examples are included in (52). While it is possible that these forms are borrowings fromColville-Okanagan, where Ii/ > [a] in Pharyngeal Movement, the pattern appears in Kalispel as well.63Further examples of Spokane Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony roots are:4lakw -ule?xw s-inhak=s5=1-v 'pancake''Vicspay61-e Ic-Plac-p-m-i 'It's dripping here and there''Spaniard'-Jfac't'may6ye?-V t'a+fa?cl-n'm' 'It made the sound of a grasshopper''small shell, like a cowrie'qmal =efxw s4m1-t+akw 'brick house'qnakw =ene? sqnakw+kw=ane? 'toad'qpt =u1e2xw s-n-Vpt=saw 'dumplings, noodles'-gp'at' =use? p'ea-y=2 'newly born fish'qqway =ups qwi?-t=sjo blue-tailed lizard'qq'way =us q,wy......6.5 black face'qsan Olsan-p-nagm 'He's engrossed'qX'o2,1 -cut X'o2.1-mn-c_6_1 'dust storm'"horn =eye? Im'-f-4in'=ay'e2 'frogs'64But cf. p'c'=alq'w=dwes-t=&n 'excrement on his legs (Coyote's third son)'In this form the root qp'c' is not affecting the stressed /e/ of the suffix /-ew'es/.259ye' p;n' kw-qpiae=qin"You're a dummy. Your headis like squishy tree mossgravy'c) clan(a)^-en^4c1n-m-s-t-in^'I tightened it'=en6^644c'n-m=an6-m-s-t-n 'I tied the cinch'd) 4say^=cin^sa?ssa2sin^'diminishing voices andsounds of people as they wander away'The same alternations seen for Spokane are found in Kalispel.KalispelPharyngeal movement in Kalispel was noted by Vogt (1940). He records that /i/and /e/ are replaced by [a], but presents several cases of 'unexplained [o]' which (asMattina (1979) points out) are cases of /u/ affected by Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony.Kalispel also introduces a second source of Progressive Pharyngeal harmony: /1/ derivedfrom Proto-Salish */r/. Historically, this is the same In which participates in the class ofCoeur d'Alene faucals for the purposes of long-distance Regressive Faucal Harmony,although it does not condition Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony in any of the r-languages(Coeur d'Alene, Colville, Spokane and Columbian). Assuming that the Tongue Rootnode of */r/ was delinked in the passage to /1/ the root would be left with a floatingTongue Root node. The remaining Coronal node on what was */r/ could then beinterpreted as a purely Coronal resonant, /1/. The stability of the de-linked Tongue Rootnode in such roots would then provide a parallel to the hypothesized origin of ProgressivePharyngeal Harmony roots in the loss of segmental pharyngeals, and /11 < */r/ roots willnow meet the structural description for Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony (see section6.2.6.1). This analysis of Progressive Harmony Roots with /1/ confirms the hypothesis260that Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony is the spread of a floating Tongue Root node,independently of the fact that segmental faucals do not trigger the process.(53) Kalispel Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony roots with a historic pharyngealRoot Suffixic'an /-mV/ ?esqc'an-p-r_n_i 'It is tightening'I-Vp/ c'an-s4 'It got tight'*pat /=etkw/ rolpt=AWI 'the water boils'pas /-min/ qpsa-p-man 'I admire him'65I-Vp/ ps-42 'he is scared'p2os /=etkw/ U-p2os-A.V-7 'foam on water'66san 4san+san-t-uw-in 'he gets tame'*tas /-cut/ 2esqts-p-mn=011-i 'they applaud'*t'am /-mV/ 'he sucks'?esqrm-mi 'he is sucking'/=cin/ n-fam=gi-n 'I kiss his mouth'67(54) Kalispel Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony roots with C2=/1/ [a, e, (a), 3]) rather than neutralizing to [a] as inColville. Lillooet and Shuswap have very similar progressive harmonies, but lack the/i1/ —> [a] alternation found in Coeur d'Alene and provide examples of the/e/e/ —> [a/a] alternation which is not attested in Coeur d'Alene (since /0 does notappear in Coeur d'Alene suffixes). Furthermore, Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony in allthree Type-iii languages shows /i/ alternating with [e]. This alternation is attested inRegressive Faucal Harmony in Coeur d'Alene, but is not found in the progressiveharmonies examined so far (Colville, Spokane and Kalispel). It cannot be argued that i–ealternations are the result of Tongue Root spreading to an unspecified Ii/ vowel, since wepredict [a/a] in such cases. This is supported by the observation that there is no evidencefor /i1/ in Lillooet, where /a/ is the unspecified vowel of the system. Remnant (1990)proposes the underspecification in (55) for Lillooet vowels. It is identical to thatproposed for Coeur d'Alene by Doak (1992), except that [low] is used instead of [high]and /a/ takes the place of hi!. The redundancy rules proposed differ accordingly, since [i]is the surface form of unspecified fii/ of Coeur d'Alene, [a] of unspecified /a/ in Lillooet.(55) Lillooet vowels (Remnant 1990)i^u^x^a[low]^+[back][round]^+[e]^[o]^[x]^[a]Redundancy rules:[ ] —> [-low][ ] —> [-back/flow][ ] —> [+back][ ] —> [-round]262Assuming (55), the i—e alternation in Lillooet and Shuswap can be viewed as thesame as the /i21 —e alternation in Coeur d'Alene. Harmony [e] is thus a [-back, TongueRoot] vowel in Coeur d'Alene, Lillooet and Shuswap.6.2.6.3.1 Coeur d'AleneFurther detailed insight into the process of Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony canbe gained from its effects in Coeur d'Alene, where the process is well documented andhas been discussed for some time (Reichard 1938, Sloat 1975, 1980, Cole 1987, Bessell1990, Doak 1989, 1992). There are also sufficient data on the Coeur d'Alene harmoniesto systematically investigate opacity and transparency phenomena in a fairly satisfyingway. Furthermore, Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony in Coeur d'Alene exactly parallelsRegressive Faucal Harmony in terms of resulting harmonic vowel qualities. Itdemonstrates, therefore, the fullest attested extent of parallelism between the twoharmonies and reinforces the analysis that the same node (Tongue Root) participates inboth harmonies.Recall first the description of Coeur d'Alene vowels. Regressive Faucal Harmonyis responsible for the occurence of [a, 3] and some [c] in both roots and suffixes, but thereis a residue of [3, a] in approximately 60 roots which are not predictable based on thepresence of a faucal consonant. These are the CoC(C) and CaC(C) roots referred to in(27), the relevant parts of which are repreated here as (56).(56) Coeur d'Alene roots with [3, a] but no faucalC3 C (C)^13CaC(C)^50These roots condition the occurrence of [e, 3, a] in suffixes which are not theconsequence of Regressive Faucal Harmony. Instead Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony is263triggered by the roots in (56), which themselves contain one of the vowels [8, o, (11.69The process targets stressed suffix vowels /i, ti/ and produces vowels of the same qualityas Regressive Faucal Harmony. Since stressed /8/ does not occur in suffixes, it is notavailable as a target for the rule (Doak 1992). As a consequense of harmony [, 6, 6] insuffixes which are not derived by Regressive Faucal Harmony are the product ofProgressive Pharyngeal Harmony.Of the 60+ roots in (56), about 20 are attested Progressive Pharyngeal Harmonyroots, in that Reichard's grammar gives examples of them with a following stressed suffixwhich retracts to the expected value. Reichard's grammar lacks examples of theremaining roots in the appropriate environment (that is, with a following stressed suffix)to test the prediction that they too trigger Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony. (57) and(58) show the effects of Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony on suffixes. Affected suffixesare underlined. In these and following examples I use V for a root vowel when it is notrecorded with stress and is indeterminate in value.(57) /=ilmxw/ 'person, man'a. Non-harmony root4pEgw=iilmxw^4nag-man[p'agwilamxw] 'echo'b. Harmony rootsi) 4co2t=iilmxw^4sob-person[ceo2t4Urri_xY-] 'dwarfii) sy84eVm=iilmxw^one who's occupation is4make damp-person[syet'amdlamxw] 'one who licks people'69Since /c/ occurs as a non-harmonic vowel as well as harmonic vowel, its status as a harmony trigger canonly be determined from its behaviour, not from its appearance in a root without a faucal. Doak (1992)gives instances of the root -Nike which show the quality of the root vowel to be [c] under stress. This roottriggers Progressive Harmony, and so provides a (predicted) example of /c/ as a harmony-triggering rootvowel.264(58)/-us/ 'eye, orifice'a.Non-harmony root-‘hip'=us-n'^4wipe-face-that which[?ip'usan] 'towel; wipe face'b.Harmony rootcsi-his-olp'Ve=us-m^FUT- 1SUBJ/3OBJ -ThIsquirt-eye-COMPLETIVE[ceiha stp'acta m] 'I will squirt him in the eye'To summarize the distribution of vowels in Coeur d'Alene, prefix and suffixmorphemes show no occurrences of [s, 3, a] which are not predictable on the basis ofeither Progressive Harmony, Regressive Harmony or a tautomoThemic faucal to the rightof the relevant vowel. Within roots, the occurrence of [s, 3, a] is predictable on the basisof whether C2 or C3 is a faucal or not, or whether the root is affected by RegressiveHarmony triggered by a suffix. There are, as I have mentioned, some 60 roots whichcontain [3, a] unpredicted by any of the processes mentioned above. I suggest that theseroots be regarded as a separate class and that we maintain the generalization so apparentin affixes and the vast majority of roots, that only /i, E, u/ are phonemic. The formalstatus of the [3, a] roots is discussed in the next section.Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony formalized(59) below shows that as with Regressive Harmony, labials, coronals and velarsare transparent to Progressive Harmony. Suffixes containing the stressed vowel whichundergoes Progressive Harmony are underlined.(59) Progressive Harmony: General consonant transparencya. Labial transparencyi) 4tVm-n-cut^4scorch-TRANS -REFL[tamangit] 'he scorched himself265266ii) qt'Vp=s6i2nt^4shoot=people[t'apst 6it]^'he shot (people)'b. Coronal transparencyi) s*Vs-iiye[spass'aii) 4p'Vf=iisgwel[p'at'Asyygl]c. Velar transparencyi) c'+qc'Vkw=ups[c'c'okwas]ii) 4t'Vm=i21gwcs=ci2n-m[t'amelgwesaLam]NOM4be astonishing-playingly'folly, error'-Jbe mushy=insidestrout'DIM (redup)+4?=bottom'baby lice/nits' (Doak 1989a)'Vdampen=internals=mouth-??'he licked his lips'At this point Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony in Coeur d'Alene looks a lot likeRegressive Facual Harmony in the same language. However, the behaviour of faucalswith respect to Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony is more complex than their behaviourwith respect to Regressive Faucal Harmony. For example, there are a number of rootswith [a, o] which do not appear to trigger Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony. The vastmajority of these roots have /r,r'/, a uvular or a pharyngeal in C2 position. (60) givesexamples of such roots with following stressed suffixes which are not affected byProgressive Harmony. As shown in (61) the suffixes /-cut!, /=iip/, /-iiw'es/ and /=iict/will otherwise undergo Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony when stressed and preceded byprogressive harmony roots.(60) Faucal root, no Progressive Pharyngeal Harmonya. t-qpar'kw=inE? -n-cut^attached to-4pierce=ear- 1RANS-REFL[tpar'kwEnc? anal]^'he pierced his own ear'267b. 4caq=ip^4hollow object stands=behind/after[caqii2] 'chase'C. '11a<-t-iwie s^4be friend-Subjective-between/among[lax thiLls] 'they were friends'd. hin41aSw=ict=Etkwe?^in4plunge=hand=water[hanlaTwictitkat2 ]^'he plunged his hand into the water'(61) Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony on /-cut/, /=ip/, /-iwies/, /=ict/a. hn-p'at+piati=os-n-g.t^'he dreamed'b. hn-c'axw+ct4axw=9:12-an'-am^'he retired'c. ni?-c'omi-dwies-anc^'he sucked amongst'd. c-yaci-Fyaci-am=k1-m 'hold on tight'One might surmise that the faucals in these roots in (60) are blocking ProgressivePharyngeal Harmony, but this is not generally the case. Doak (1992) argues persuasivelyand carefully that there is no blocking of Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony in Coeurd'Alene. (62) gives examples of Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony passing throughretracted In and uvulars. There are no examples of Progressive Pharyngeal Harmonypassing through pharyngeal segments. This latter fact is discussed below.(62) Uvular or /r,r7 root, Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony permitteda. hn4kwar + kwar-iiw'es-an^Loc4be yellow (redup)between/among-thatwhichhan-4kwar+kwar-gyZIa-an^'crossbills'b. hn4c'axw + c'axw-iip-n'-m^LOC4? (redup)-bottom(?)-?-?han-4c'axw + c'axw-Ap-n'-m^'he retired'c. 44eqw-i2p-iwies-kn^4band lies-bottom-among/between-legs41aqw-t42-aw'as-"Sri 'breechclout'On the basis of the data discussed above and the transparency of all segments, letus attempt to formalize Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony in Coeur d'Alene. The vowelsin roots which trigger the harmony ([s, 3, a]) are from the set which I have termedharmonic vowels, normally derived under the influence of a consonant with a TongueRoot node. Following Doak (1992) I suggest, therefore, that Progressive PharyngealHarmony roots must at least share this characterization, and minimally bear a TongueRoot node.(63) Coeur d'Alene Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony VTongue Root 0root/ Place0 Labial, etc.Independent evidence for this analysis is discussed by Doak (1989) who draws onwork by Mattina (1979). Specifically, many Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony roots arecognate with Colville roots which Mattina describes as containing a pharyngealconsonant or else undergoing Pharyngeal Movement, thereby shifting the original rootpharyngeal to a stressed suffix (section 6.2.6.1). Cognate roots in Columbian Salish oftenshow a retracted vowel, and Spokane-Kalispel roots with [a, 3] vowel qualities havealready been discussed. The relevant point is that these languages seem to have lost thepharyngeal consonant in their Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony roots, but retain theeffect of its presence and affect the stressed vowel of the stem domain. ProgressivePharyngeal Harmony is obviously Coeur d'Alene's version of the Pharyngeal Movementwhich Mattina (1979) documents for Colville. Both processes share a stressed vowel inthe stem domain as the target for the rule. (64) gives examples of Progressive Harmony268roots in Coeur d'Alene and their Colville counterparts, showing the proposed historicpharyngeal.(64) Coeur d'Alene PPH root^Colville cognatemal"heat'^nqmSalnas^'snot' s-n\kaspas^'astonish'^4pCasp'ac"squirt, defecate'^ac'son'^'tame' sn+sTan-tyac"tight'^4yTac'Further confirmation of the hypothesis that Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony isconditioned by pharyngeal loss is invited by the observation (Doak 1987, 1992) that theprocess is a pharyngeal rather than a general faucal harmony. First of all, availableevidence shows that only Colville roots with pharyngeal consonants or Columbian rootswith retracted vowels correspond to Coeur d'Alene Progressive Pharyngeal Harmonyroots. The harmony is not triggered by segmental faucals, as seen in (60) and noted veryclearly by Doak (1992). Secondly, of the roots which appear to be exceptions toProgressive Harmony, i.e. those roots with [a, o] but also a faucal in C2, I can find nocases of correspondence with Colville roots containing a pharyngeal which is not nowpresent in the Coeur d'Alene form. In other words, there is no evidence of pharyngealloss in this set of exceptions to Progressive Harmony.269I give here a sampling of roots which are exceptions to Progressive Harmony, andtheir Colville cognates. Note that the Coeur d'Alene root .Nlyai 'gather' and its Colvillecognate retain the pharyngeal. There has been no pharyngeal loss in this root, and sothere is nothing to spread.(65) Roots which do not trigger PPH^Colvillecaq^'obj. stands'^cqc'ar^'be ill' c'rlax^'be friend'^l'xfaq"crouch' lq'faqw 'belt' klwmar 'treat'^mrimn'axwt 'downstream'^n-J2 axwtsaq"split' sq'sar^'hang' rolxar-nttal'q 'kick'^tiqt'ax^'swift' ti'ax-tyarp"loop' cAlyark'wyaS^'gather'^yaTThe data in (65) suggest that these non-harmony roots simply do not have theappropriate feature configuration to spread, not having suffered the pharyngeal loss whichconditions the harmony. Thirdly, while there are examples of the transparency of labial,coronal, velar and uvular consonants to Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony (59, 62), thereare no examples of pharyngeal transparency. All roots with a pharyngeal in C2 fail totrigger Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony. There is a distributional explanation for thisgap in harmony effects which corroborates Doak's argument that the condition forProgressive Pharyngeal Harmony originates in pharyngeal loss. The explanation is this:restrictions on the occurrence of pharyngeals in Interior Salish are such that only onepharyngeal occurs in a given stem (Kinkade 1967:232) except through compounding orreduplication. Therefore, there will never be a case of pharyngeal loss in a root such that270a (second) pharyngeal consonant is still present. Pharyngeal loss involves the loss of theonly pharyngeal that a given root is able to have (Besse11 1990).To summarize, there is strong evidence that Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony istriggered by a subset of roots which have lost a (historic) pharyngeal consonant.Progressive Harmony roots are characterized by the presence of a Tongue Root node leftbehind from the loss of this pharyngeal consonant. As noted by Doak (1992) this is anexample of what Goldsmith (1976) terms stability. It is here proposed that this TongueRoot node is floating (see also Doak 1989, 1992) and occurs at the right margin ofProgressive Harmony roots. After the root has cycled through the morphology, wheresuffixes may be added, the Tongue Root node anchors onto the stressed vowel of thestem. Having the floating node at the right edge of the root accounts for the transparencyeffects of uvulars and In in C2 position shown in (65). After Progressive PharyngealHarmony, Regressive Faucal Harmony takes over and spreads the now anchored TongueRoot node to the left so that root vowels acquire the appropriate quality.70 In cases whereProgressive Pharyngeal Harmony roots occur without following stressed suffixes, thefloating Tongue Root node will anchor onto the stressed vowel of the root, in accordancewith its stress sensitivity and the stress foot domain. Derivations follow:27170The placement of the floating TR node at the right edge was suggested to me by P.A. Shaw, along withthe suggestion that Regressive Harmony apply automatically after Progressive Harmony. Doak (1992)similarly has Progressive Harmony feed Regressive Harmony. See Shaw (1989) for arguments thatfloating segments are constrained to occur only at the margins of lexical domains.(66)a. Labial root1.Progressive harmonyVPLACELABCORN- s^i2^n^t02720[-bic][-ant),DORTR2. Regressive harmony: t'Vp+sUnt —>[t'apsUnt] 'he shot (people)'b. Coronal root1. Progressive Harmony--s +PLACELABCORDORTRV 6[spa sdye]^'folly, error'c. Velar root1. Progressive harmonyNIC' + c'PLACELABDORTRU^kw = uC-Fc'ukw=ups —> [c'c'okw3ps] 'baby lice'xwd. Uvular root1. Progressive harmony273hn 4c' VPLACELABCORDORTRV^xw0Np- n'- m2. Regressive harmony: hn4c'Vxw+c'Vxw+ip-n'm--> hrniciaxw+c'axw-dp-n'm3. Vowel reduction: lunic'axwc'axwcipn'm4. Schwa epenthesis: [hanc'axweaxw-apan'am] 'he retired'Shuswap and Lillooet are the other Type-iii Progressive Pharyngeal Harmonylanguages. They are like Coeur d'Alene in the range of vowel effects, although Lillooet(and to a lesser extent, Shuswap) introduce the complication of so-called retractedconsonants, to be discussed in section 6.2.6.5. The same rule of Progressive PharyngealHarmony motivated for Coeur d'Alene can be assumed for all Type-iii languages.7171The stress condition is noted for Shuswap by Kuipers (1974, 1989) but is not so obvious in Lillooet.Based on the Progressive Harmony data contained in van Eijk (1985), the following statement of thedistribution of stress and harmony in Lillooet can be made: Harmony does not occur on unstressed vowelsexcept (i) in reduplication; (ii) in polysyllabic or monosyllabic roots; (iii) the transitivizing suffix -Vn; (iv)three cases of single segment retraction. I suggest that these are all apparent exceptions to thegeneralization that stress is relevant to the rule. In the case of reduplication it can be assumed that thespread of retraction onto the root takes place before reduplication, and so unstressed vowels of reduplicatedroots can surface with retraction whether to the right or left of main stress (e.g. pilAlt 'stubborn': intlit'squishy, soft'). The same is true of reduplicated retracted roots in 1•110kepmxcin, as far as I can tell. Inpolysyllabic roots, all retractable segments are usually retracted, e.g. mItc'31 'pus'. This indicates that theminimal domain of retraction is the root itself. This is the general case since unstressed vowels ofretracting roots (if they are not deleted) are nonetheless transcribed with retraction. The transitivizingsuffix /-Vn/ is noted by van Eijk (1985:40) to take retraction regardless of stress. The vowel of this suffixis a copy of the root vowel, and so it can be argued that the vowel is retracted before copying takes place(or else the suffix is a root-extender and so falls within the domain of root retraction). Two of the threecases of single segment retraction involve unstressed vowels. The forms in which these vowels occur areboth expressions of disapproval and the appearance of retraction in these forms may be related to whatRemnant (1990) calls an 'adversative' morpheme. In any case, these vowels may be analyzable with a pre-linked Tongue Root node. There are cases such as this noted for Moses-Columbia Salish (Czaykowska-Higgins, in preparation). Given the above, there remain two cases of exceptional retraction on a post-tonicvowel: n-kah-aw's 'railroad track': n-kah-kh-aw's 'to walk along the railroad track'. I know of no6.2.6.3.2 ShuswapKuipers (1974) notes 41 harmonizing roots in Shuswap, with two sources of theretraction feature.72 In a number of cases the retracting roots are cognate with Colvilleforms transcribed with a pharyngeal, but in other cases the Shuswap root contains an /1/derived from Proto-Salish */r/. The inclusion of /1/ < */r/ has already been noted forKalispel. Kuipers (1974, 1989) notes that none of the known Shuswap harmony rootscontain a uvular or pharyngeal. The lack of pharyngeals can be explained as it was forCoeur d'Alene: in becoming a harmony root, a root loses its only possible pharyngeal.However, some Coeur d'Alene and Lillooet harmony roots do contain a uvular, so theconstraint against uvular obstruents in retracted roots may be Shuswap-specific.With respect to harmonic vowel quality, Shuswap [e] functions as the retractedvariant of /i/, as well as the non-harmony alternant of /e/. This is similar to Coeurd'Alene, but with /1/ < */r/ participating in Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony and withoutthe /i1/ -> [a] alternation attested in Coeur d'Alene.(67) Shuswap progressive harmony: /i, 6, d/ > [g, a, 5]No /1/ in C2Root^Suffix^Harmony formexplanation for these exceptions. In all cases of retracted consonants in suffixes, retraction does not spreadbeyond the consonant immediately following the stressed retracted suffix vowel, e.g. c'n'-alus-am 'to takeaim'; k'af-t-61-wif 'to wet one's bed', kwAl-m-dkst 'yellow tree moss'. This suggests that retraction can filterdown to the time of the last syllable of the harmony domain.72Kuipers (1974) notes that Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony in Shuswap is often variable, with someharmony roots permitting both harmonic and non-harmonic suffixes. In cases of variability, non-harmonicforms tend to replace harmonic forms. The Shuswap inventory is as follows:Labial Coronal Velar Uvular Pharyngeal GlottalP t c k kw q qw 2p' t' c'^X' k' k'w q,^ci,ws^I x xw X Xw hm n y^1 y w 7 Twm ' n' y'^1' y' w' T' T'wVowels: /i, e, u/274275Alt's^-es^Alt's-nt-Aa^'he pats it down'Alpt 4ptgt^'to boil'=ule?xw^s-n4pt=3lg2xw^'dumplings'4pat'^-min^pat'-mii-s^'pour out mushy stuff=etkw^x4pf=Atw 'to soak s.t.'=ep^apati+pf=k2^'have one's pants hangingdown'4k'is^=us^A'as=i.5^'bad looking'/1/ rootsqxw?al^=ekst^.Jxw3l'=i.k5t^'do s.t. quickly'Alc'al^=ene2^x4c'al=k-Le2^have ear throb'=us^KNIcl+c'a14.1^'have eyes smart'=cin^xqc11=giu. 'have one's mouth stung'=ixwe?ck^x4c1=fLcHe2ck^'have one's tongue smart'4w1^=en's^s4w1=en's-m^'flower's4w1=inls-m=ul'xw^c-x4w1=n's-m=61'axw 'mud and weeds at bottom ofwater'Of some interest in the Shuswap data is that the suffix /=qin/ is never retracted.(68) shows examples of Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony roots which affect /i, e, u/ butdo not affect the /i/ of /=qin/.(68) No retraction on /=qin/Root^Suffix^Harmony formqsel^-es 'to peel'=ic'e?^sl-t=icLe?^'to peel off=qin^x'41=qin-s 'to scalp'276qtlat'^=ep^x\it1at+tif=g12^'have wet behind'=qin^qtfat+tiat'=qin^'having wet hair'4kwl^=elst^.Nikw1=illt^'gall'=ulxw^x.Nikwla -t=51exw^'Reserve No.9 at Alkali Lake'=qin^oikwl-e2=qin^'strawberry roan horse'This is contrary to the situation in Spokane where there is an example of [-clan] as a resultof Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony. It cannot be argued that Shuswap /V does notretract, because there is evidence that it does. As a consequence, these data raise theissue of the uvular /q/ blocking the spread of the Tongue Root node. This in turn raisesthe question of whether the floating Tongue Root node of Progressive PharyngealHarmony is on a separate plane or not. We know that faucals do not block ProgressivePharyngeal Harmony in Coeur d'Alene, where there is a reasonable range of dataavailable on which to base such observations. Unfortunately, as noted by Doak (1992),there is a Shuswap form xap=qn-mgn 'noontime approaches' in which the final suffix /-min/ is retracted to [-mgn] past a uvular (Kuipers 1974). This of course contradicts theinterpretation of/q/-blocking seen in (68). Further work is required to resolve this issue.6.2.6.3.3 LillooetTongue Root harmonies in Lillooet are formalized by Remnant (1990) based ondata in van Eijk (1985).73 Lillooet does not have long-distance Regressive FaucalHarmony, but it does show local effects from faucals (including /z, z'/) on immediatelypreceding full vowels, as noted in Table 6.32. Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony roots inLillooet are of several types. There are some harmony roots with /1/ < *r or cognate withretraction in Columbian. There are also harmony roots with no apparent segmentalsource for harmony. A third class is harmony roots which carry a negative connotation(cf. Kuipers 1974, 1989 who notes several sources of harmony roots in Shuswap).Remnant (1990) divides the harmony roots into two sets: those with a floatingautosegmental Tongue Root node and those with what she terms an Adversativemorpheme comprised of a Tongue Root node. Both sets of roots condition the samealternations, viz. li, u, x, a, c, s, 1, 17 —> [E, o, a, A, c, s,1,1174. This is quite differentfrom the targets of local Regressive Faucal Harmony in Lillooet, which do not include /a/or /c, s, 1, 17. The inclusion of consonantal targets for Progressive Harmony is discussedbelow, since it differentiates Lillooet harmony from that found in Coeur d'Alene. Lillooetis Type-iii on the basis of the vocalic alternations attested, which are also found in Coeurd'Alene and Shuswap. Lillooet /a/ parallels Coeur d'Alene /ii/ in the sense of being theunspecified vowel of the system.73 The Lillooet vowel inventory is /i, u, x, a/, the consonantal inventory is given below (van Eijk 1985). /c,s/ are phonetically R, '§1.Uvular Pharyngeal^Glottalq qw^ 2q' q'wX Xw hI IS' S'w74 However, it should be noted that there are cases in Lillooet where stressed Ii/ of an otherwise retractedroot is not retracted, and there are some cases where Ii/ in a stressed suffix is not retracted. Van Eijk (1985)observes that the latter cases seem to be correlated with the presence of a following 'neutral' consonant, thatis, some consonant other than uvulars, pharyngeals and retracted or retractable coronals.277Labial Coronal Velarp t^c k kwP' c'^X's^1k'3ck'w30m n^z^1 Y y wm'' n'^z'^1' y ' yl(69) Lillooet Progressive Pharyngeal HarmonyRoot SuffixqqA1 -wil'x qnf-vdra:x 'to get spoiled'4c'ep =xl'iw c'ep-al'iws 'to have body odour'Al =ulm'xw 1041m'axwgLinp'boundary''ringing sound'To summarize: Type-iii Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony languages show eachvowel with a unique harmonic altemant. It was suggested that the addition of the TongueRoot node to all underlying vowel specifications is permitted, and that schwa is theunderspecified vowel of Lillooet, /ii/ of Coeur d'Alene. The stress condition isunambiguously upheld in Coeur d'Alene and Shuswap, and appears to be in Lillooet. Thesuggestion that /q/ may block Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony in Shuswap cannot beproperly evaluated without further fieldwork and analysis.6.2.6.4 Type-iv languages: Me2kepmxcin and Moses-ColumbianThe reflex of Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony in Type-iv languages shows thehigh front vowel /i/ behaving uniquely. The Ntekepmxcin data introduce a distinctionbetween (i) the association of the Tongue Root feature of harmony roots to the root itselfand (ii) its spread past the root to suffix morphemes. All vowels (/i, e, u, a/) are targettedfor initial association within roots. However, the targets of spread beyond the rootdomain are /e, u, a/, with /i/ never affected. Similar facts are noted for Moses Columbian,where Czaykowska-Higgins argues that in roots, initial association is regressive andtargets all retractable segments including IV, but in the stem domain the direction ofspread is progressive. In the latter domain a cline /a > u> i/ is claimed: /a/ is most likelyto be targetted, /u/ less likely and Ii/ least likely (Czaykowska-Higgins, in preparation).Likewise, there is some evidence in Niekepmxcin that /u/ is less likely to harmonize than/e/, whereas /i/ is not a target for Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony at all. Given that the278distribution of harmonic segments motivates association of the harmony feature withinthe root domain first, followed by progressive spread, one might wonder if the ruleunderlying Type-iv harmony really is the same as that found with Types i-iii. It will beargued that IsTtekepmxcin and Moses-Columbian harmony is indeed a version of thatfound in Type i-iii languages, but with a difference predicted by the fact that initialassociation has taken place first in the root domain; that is to say, to be retracted, suffixesmust be adjacent to harmony roots which have an associated Tongue Root node.However, this variation cannot account for the exceptionality of Ii/, which has to bestipulated, just as with Regressive Faucal Harmony in Spokane and Kalispel.I argue here that Nie?kepmxcin retraction parallels aspects of ProgressivePharyngeal Harmony as we know it from Coeur d'Alene, Shuswap, Kalispel andSpokane. Charactersitics held in common include (i) root control of harmony; (ii)predictable affix vowel values; (iii) harmony roots characterized by a Tongue Root node,and harmony is the spread of this node; (v) spread of the Tongue Root node isprogressive. The discussion of Nie?kepmxcin harmony which follows owes a great dealto work on Moses-Columbian retraction by Czaykowska-Higgins (in preparation), wherethe facts are similar.IsTiekepmxcin retraction75First of all, as with all of the Interior Salish languages IsTiekepmxcin retraction isan unpredictable, lexical property of root morphemes. There are not many examples of75The Nie?kepmxcin consonantal inventory is given below (Thompson and Thompson 1992). /c, s/ arephonetically R. and /LW are noted as 'dark'. The vowel inventory is /i, c/m, u, a/.Labial Coronal^VelarUvular^Pharyngeal^Glottalp^t^c k^kw^q qw 7p' c' X'^k'^k'w^q, cfws 1 x^xw^X Xw^ hm^n^z 1 Y^Y^w 11wm'^n'^z' l'^y' V^w' 1' l'w279roots contrasting only for the presence of retraction but (70) lists those I have found inThompson and Thompson (1990). The presence of these roots in Me2kepmxcin arguesfor retraction as an underlying contrastive feature, on a par with other contrastive featuresin the phoneme inventory.(70) 1•11e2kepmxcin retraction: Minimal or near minimal pairsPlain Retracteda) ?esqkg 'detached' 2esqk'4+ 'dirty, muddied'b) qpat-tes 'flatten s.t.' qpn.X'-tis 'dump s.t. over'c) 4sik'w-es 'break, smash s.t.' qsa-es 'whistleto, at s.b.'d) .■/cm 'small' (pl.) )cm 'dirty,Within retracted roots, the surface manifestation of retraction is variable, as thedata in (71) indicate. Despite this variability, for most roots there exists a form in whichall potentially retractable segments in a given root are retracted, as also indictated by thedata in (71). This can be expressed formally by the analysis of retraction as a prosodicfeature associated with roots, with subsequent association to all retractable segmentswithin the root domain. In Nie?kepmxcin the class of retractable segments in roots is /i,e, u, a/ and the consonants /c, s, 1, 17.(71) Retracted roots: all retractable segments in a root can be retractedco$ 'scatter in piles' cnin^Cam 'dirty'W/4 — lens — k'$ 'bad' can — cAn 'ring'c'a$^C'A$ 'hoof col — col — coi 'wink'Sal — Al$ 'peel smooth' kil^kE1 'gap'las^la $^Lis — 1A$ 'low-down' $ik^$E1c 'whistle'mAl$m 'bog blueberry' cA$^ca$ 'dry-roast'280The observation that the root is a domain for retraction is supported by thebehaviour of prefixes, which do not participate in retraction.76 The examples in (72)show the s-nominalizer and stative prefix ties-I remaining unretracted, despite beingprefixed to a retracting root.(72) Prefixes do not retractg■ic'51'=w?^'tall Oregon grape berries'sqcn-Xp^'ring, strike'2e s4c/int^'dirty, dirty-coloured'Given the fact that the prefix-root boundary is not crossed by retraction,reduplication sheds some light on the association of retraction in roots and confirms theanalysis of retraction as a lexical property of roots. Under the analysis that association ofa floating feature of retraction is within the root, reduplication data show that thisassociation must take place before those morphological processes of reduplication whichinvolve prefixation, such as the Augmentative (Thompson and Thompson 1992, Jimmie1992). The Augmentative reduplicative prefix never appears stressed. Since prefixes areconsistently outside the domain of stress, the stress pattern of the Augmentative isexplained if this reduplication type is analysed as prefixal (Czaykowska-Higgins 1991).In all the reduplication of retracted roots that I have been able to examine, retracted76The exclusion of prefixes to retraction is robust, with three exceptions that I have been able to find.These exceptions all involve the s-nominalizer which is seen not to retract in (77) and there is variationbetween a retracted and non-retracted prefix in two of these exceptions. The third exception is a loan fromthe Coast Salish language Halkomelem, which has an unclear /s:§/ contrast (part free variation, partcomplementation: Thompson 1979). Czaykowska-Higgins (in preparation) argues that there is a separaterule of regressive [RTR] spread in Moses-Columbian which optionally affects prefixes. There is someevidence from Lillooet (van Eijk 1985, Remnant 1990) that prefixal elements are affected by harmony also.Prefix exceptions(a) stm'dlt stm'alt stm'dlt^'cow; bull; cattle'^may be a loan(b) .41w1-; •41wal-^'shiny-green/brown'^loan from Okanaganslkwl-apssqiwl-dps s4Tw1-4psgrkwl-aps(c)^7ainala^ 'Okanagan people'^loan fromHalkomelem281consonants are reduplicated as retracted. In the case of Augmentative reduplication, thisshows that spreading of the retracting feature must take place within the root beforereduplication. Once that spreading has taken place and reduplication has occurred thevowel of the reduplicated prefix reduces and usually is not transcribed with retraction(though cf. Lillooet, where it often is).(73) Reduplication of retracted consonantsAugmentative reduplication: CVCI=JCVCAivaSw.4$alAkal'4$aw'41easA/yep?es Sc•Sw-F0Sw?es $al+s,C1cal'+011n-k'a$-Fk'$=init?es yap+ygp'peeled off in several strips''sheer cliffs''striped around''scratched''bad singing''(already) squeezed'While it has been argued that retraction is a property of roots that does not extendto prefixes, we have already seen that retraction can extend to suffixes on a retracted root.Such suffixes are not underlyingly retracted, since their retraction is entirely predictablebased on the properties of the root to which they are attached.77 This distribution ofretraction on suffixes is directly analogous to that found in languages with ProgressivePharyngeal Harmony.77While the retraction of suffixes is ordinarily dependent on retraction in a root, I have found the followingexceptions:'nothing in basket' (emphatic)(b) 4nek"change'^=ls^ndk'.1s-m^'corrode; rust'=elst^nek'=1-m=d1st^'knife gets rusty'(c) -Jcw 'make, do'^=els^cw=ah-m 'make a stone knife'=ezn cw=azn-me^'make net(s)The presence of /1/ or /z/ in the affected suffixes may explain the appearance of retracted vowels, but thereare a number of suffixes with /1/ which do not exhibit this retracting effect ( /=el'qs/, /=e10/, /=elus/). Theanalysis of suffixal /Ifs as retracting can only be by analogy to /1/'s occuring in C2 position of roots, since itis in this position, and not in suffixes, that [1] is historically derived from retracting */r/. /z/ usually locallyretracts regardless of position. Another possibility, suggested to me by E. Czaykowska-Higgins, is thatthese suffixes were at one time roots. See Carlson (1991) for the hypothesis that lexical suffixes arederived from (sometime) roots.282(a) 4tam 'lack'^=altn^ 'nothing in basket'n-tam=41tnn-t3-t9m=41tnThere is however, a distinction to be made between retraction in roots andretraction in suffixes. While there are no examples of fi/ retracted in a suffix (to bediscussed below), there are some examples of it in retracted roots.(74) /i/ —> [E] in harmony roots'cut up s.t.'s-yam+ygm '(double) rainbow'xlgl'x^'salmon turn red and get slimy during spawning'?es '/yep^'(already) squeezed'n-Wc-mn^'short whistle''pitch, sap'kg1'^'gap'cae?^[place name, creek in Spuzzum area]If the targets for retraction are distinct in roots as opposed to suffixes, this wouldsuggest two applications of the rule, one of which is constrained not to affect IV, one ofwhich is not subject to this constraint. I suggest therefore, that the Tongue Root nodewhich characterizes retracted roots in Niekepmxcin associates first to the root domainwhere all vowels and a subset of the coronals are targetted, followed by Nie?kepmxcin'sversion of Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony, which targets all vowels except /i/. Thecoronals targetted by Progressive Harmony in the stem domain are assumed to be thesame as those targetted within roots, but there are data confirming only the retraction of/s/ when immediately following a retracted suffix vowel, or in one case, right-adjacent toa harmony root. There is no evidence that I know of for assigning directionality of initialassociation within roots, although Czaykowska-Higgins argues that Moses-Columbianimposes right-to-left association of the floating Tongue Root node. Since I havepreviously argued that the Tongue Root node is at the right-edge of the root, I continue toassume it here.283Stress conditionThe stress condition on Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony is assumed byThompson and Thompson to apply in Nie?kepmxcin also. The issue is obscured by thefact that in reduplicated roots at least, loss of stress seems to incurr loss of retraction onthe vowel, so unstressed retracted vowels do not surface as such. However, it is the casethat all retracted vowels following attested harmony roots are stressed except for thefollowing two examples.(75) Unstressed retracted vowels.\ik'f=os-n-ctit^'smear dirt on one's face'kwl-o2=dytxw — -eytxw^'yellow leaves'Stress alone does not seem to be a sufficient requirement for retraction. Instead, itwould appear that adjacency and stress are relevant. Adjacency facts are discussedbelow, but here I note that retraction in Nie?kepmxcin does not spread beyond thestressed syllable. In fact, examining the distribution of retraction in polysyllabic rootsgives some insight into the conditions on spreading and association, see (76). Most of theexamples in which retraction does not spread throughout the word can be explained bythe fact that retraction does not affect anything past the rime of the stressed syllable. Thisexplains nine of the thirteen polysyllables with retracted segments. Of the remaining 4cases, all have /i/, which we have seen is resistant to retraction in suffixes. Thisdistribution, then, supports the relevance of stress to both the association of the TongueRoot node in roots and its spread across the root boundary to adjacent suffix vowels.7878Compare, though, the situation in Lillooet where loss of stress does not seem to induce loss of retraction,and the distribution of retraction in polysyllabic roots there suggests an across-the-board association withinthe root domain, regardless of the location of stress.284(76) Polysyllablesshrnala^'Okanagan people'^(loan from Halkomelem)?Ssxe 'sneeze'^(imitative)kwasu^'pig, (loan from French viaChinook Jargon)p4ki(h)^'buggy'^(loan from English)cgle? [place name, creek in Spuzzum area]kiiileafwe?^'weevil'mSc'e(h) 'hornet'p'S$ke?^'hummingbird'^(loan from Halkomelem)IcAlwet 'False Solomon's-seal'/i/ exceptional5ipi2a(S)^'CPR'^(loan from English)s l'pipx place name, fishing place near Barney's cabin(possible loan fromHalkomelem)IC1'$ikw^'Western painted turtle'mitXs 'gaiters, leggings'^(Chinook Jargo)In the following discussion I illustrate the suffixal alternations found inNie?kepmxcin, showing the resistance of /i/ to harmony.When joined to a retracting root, the stressed vowels of suffixes undergo thefollowing alternations: /e/ > [a]; /u/ > [o]; /a/ > [A]79 but /i/ does not become [e]. The/e/> [a] alternation is the most consistent of the three. /u/ > [o] occurs less reliably, and Ihave found no cases of /i/ being affected at all. The same cline is noted by Czaykowska-Higgins (in preparation) for the distribution of retracted vowels in Moses-Columbian. Inthe examples which follow /e/ of suffix vowels regularly retracts to [a], although there isvariation recorded on some forms. The (a) forms in (77) are non-harmony roots and79Thompson and Thompson (1992) note that the transcription of retracted schwa is difficult, since it soundsa lot like [a].285show the suffix in its underlying form, (b) forms are harmony roots and show harmonyalternants.(77) Nie?kepmxcin Harmony roots: /e/> [a]; /u/ > [o]; /a!> kJ; *1W> [e]286i.a) 4ck^=epb) Almqk'zifii.a) Ale?^=ele?b) '/cmiii.a) qnekw =ekstb) qk'nfiv.a) \few'^=usb) AlcmAM'qk'Elv.a) Alcw^=ic'e2b)Alk'nfvi.a) A/kws^-ap/b) 4k'n+-vii.a) -Jmi?x -amb) Alk's1ck=dp-es^'chop things off at bottom?es-nAlcm=42^'get dirty on bottom'nqk'at-k4=4425^'seat of pants is dirty'c'2=ele2=xn-tn^'floor matting'?es qcm=g1e2=xn^'have dirty, smeared feet'nekw=ekst-m-s^'yank, pull hard on s.t'k'al-p=lisa^'got hands muddy'?es-nA/cw'=tis^'having been punched in theeye'?es-nqcm=21s^'dirty window'leat-p=li 'get face dirty'k'=22-n-ctit^'smear dirt on one's face'nAlk1=11-m 'cut out, make a pattern'cw=ic'e?^'make a blanket'?esqkt=ic'e?^'dirty clothes'kws-dp^'it has gotten pitch dark"kl-/142 'get smeared with mud'mi2x-dm^'kick (s.t.)'Icl-eall 'cut hide, cloth'The examples above show one case of /i/ opacity (77v.b). The phenomenon isbetter illustrated in (78) with the root A'A5 'ugly', which harmonizes /e, u/ but not /i/,despite identical environments (immediately adjacent stressed vowel in a lexical suffix).(78) /i/ opacityk'As=elus^nk's=ilus^'bad-tempered'=efxw^k'$=A„t" 'ugly house'=ens^k'5=An.4 —k's=6ns^'poor quality board'=us k'5=115^'ugly-looking person'=ice?^k's=ice? 'dirty, ragged clothes'=ikri^le5=ilat^'have a bad back'=in'ek^k'5=in'ek 'ugly-looking weapon'=init^n-k's-k'5=init^'poor singer'These data raise the same problem for progressive harmony as the resistance of /Vin Kalispel-Spokane raises for Regressive Faucal Harmony. How can one account for theexceptional behaviour of Ii/ in Me?kepmxcin, but permit its alternation with [c] inLillooet, Coeur d'Alene and Shuswap? As with Lillooet, /a/ is the unspecified vowel ofMe?kepmxcin (Jimmie 1992). As a consequence one cannot make the technicalargument that /i/ is opaque because harmony applies at a point in which it has nospecifications and so is not a landing site for TR node spreading. Furthermore, recall that/i21 of Coeur d'Alene is analysed by Doak as underlyingly [-back]. Remnant argues forthe same representation of Lillooet /i/. Since these vowels harmonize to [c], which underthe analysis of harmony presented here is [-back, +retracted tongue root], we mustassume compatability in principle between these two features. Furthermore, Jimmie's (inpreparation) analysis of Nle?kepmxcin proposes that Ii/ is underlyingly [-back] in thislanguage also. The problem is of course, that Me?kepmxcin now contradicts thepossibility of [retracted tongue root, -back] vowels, since its /i/ does not accept [retractedtongue root]. For now, I stipulate this for Nie?kepmxcin, as I did for the resistance of /1/287to Regressive Faucal harmony in Spokane and Kalispel. The final section of this chapterconsiders this behaviour in the light of the Grounding Conditions for ATR harmonyproposed by Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1992).Of relevance for the placement of Interior Salish harmonies within the generalframework of ATR phenomena is evidence for a ranking of target vowels. Although the/e/> [a] alternation is subject to some variation in that a harmonic and a non-harmonicform may exist in the same harmony context (as seen in (79)), there is more variation inthe /u!> [o] alternation. (79) details the number of examples of each type of alternationfound in Thompson and Thompson (1990). These data are drawn from entries forattested harmony roots with the suffix vowels in a harmony context.(79) Nle?kepmxcin dine in suffix vowelso,e > a 38 examples *e > a 30 examplesu > o 7 *u > o 15a > A 13 *a > A 5i > E 0 *i > E 15While our understanding of the variability in these processes is not complete, inthe worst case /e/ harmonizes a little more than half of the time, but /u/ is twice as likelynot to harmonize than to harmonize, and /V does not harmonize at 0.81 The critical pointhere is the absolute exclusion of /i/, although the cline /a > u > it is exactly the one arguedby Czaykowska-Higgins (in preparation) for Moses-Columbian.80There are also some suffixes for which there are no examples of alternation. /-es/ is an example. Thissuffix comprises 10 of the 30 cases where no alternation is attested. Of the remaining 20, 12 are suffixeswhich are attested with harmony alternates. It is unclear at this point in our understanding of the lexicalphonology of 1•11e?kepmxcin what the rationale (if any) for the exclusion of particular suffixes fromharmony might be.81The status of /a/ harmony is obscured by the fact that the only examples of it in harmony context are withthe inchoative /-p/ and middle /-m/ affixed directly to the root. These may fall within the root domain.288AdjacencyDiscussing the effect of retracting roots, Thompson and Thompson (1992:31) noteseveral aspects of the spread of retraction to following vowels: (i) that immediatelyfollowing stressed vowels except Ii/ are the targets of the rule; (ii) that if such a target isfollowed by /y, y'/, application of the rule is blocked82 and (iii) postvocalic /s/ in thesuffix is optionally retracted to [s]. The exceptionality of /V has been discussed, but notthe restriction of retraction to 'immediately following stressed vowels'. I turn to this now.Although there is a lot of retraction data in Thompson and Thompson (1992),there are very few examples in which the effect is demonstrably long-distance (i.e.,spreads through several morphemes). If there is an adjacency requirement for retractionin Nte?kepmxcin, it is obscured by variation, as well as our incomplete understanding ofthe lexical phonology of most of the Interior languages. In the vast majority of cases,retraction occurs only on adjacent suffixes, but there are examples of spread through 1-p/'Inchoative' and /-m/ 'Middle'.(80) Retraction through /-p/ Inchoative and /-m/ Middle; /-u?/ '?'.k'QI-p=akst^'got hands muddy'k'ai-p-=-Os 'got hands dirty'tAl—tal-p=aw's^'pull muscles in lower back'k'o-m1.--dke2 — ake?^'dirty, untidy, messy'kwl-o2=aytxw — -eytxw^'yellow leaves'The /-t/ transitivizing suffix though, does not appear to allow the spread ofretraction. This is of course, evidence of blocking, but the data are scarce and not alwaysunambiguous, given the facts of variability and the dine discussed above. Fieldworkmay be needed to make firm conclusions. All of the examples I have been able to find ofpossible blocking behaviour are given in (81).82The example given is 410a1'.dym'xw 'earth begins to turn green [with green plants growing]'.289(81) Potential blocking of retraction by consonantssA/clol1=4e?-elp^'tall Oregon-grape bush; Mahonia nervosa'41a4-p-s-ctit^'settle, subside'41eas-t-n'-ctit^'misbehave, act badly'41e1-ap-nwdn'-ne^'I managed to cut'AlpAX'-nwdn'-ne^'I dumped it accidentally'n44aw'-y-epsdm^'get scratched (all) around the neck'/4/ transitivizer*As-t-és^'suspend s.t. over fire to preserve by roast-drying'4pAm-e-t-ds^'make s.t. go fast'-Vp'Af-(e)-t-ds^'flood s.t.; fill s.t. with liquid'4pAl'xw-e-t-ds^'make hole right through something'A/pAX'-t-ds 'pour s.t. out''\1W-p-s-t-ds^'manage to lower s.t.; lower accidentally'A/las-t-ds 'lower s.t. from above'leaf-I-lent-t-és^'daub s.t. (here and there, repeatedly)'*JkA$4-és 'dislike, not want s.t.'4kA4-t-6y-s^'they don't like us to go with them'4mAX'-t-ds 'flatten, trample, stomp on s.t.'Minimal pairrdlel=atkw^'muddy water (caused by animals or people)'n-qk'f-t=dtkw^'muddy water (caused by animals or people)'The adjacency issue is of interest, since 1\14e2kepmxcin is one of the languageswhich includes consonants in the targets of association within the root, and so one mustassume a rule of Minimal Scansion at some point. Furthermore, if the floating TongueRoot node is associated within the root domain before the Progressive PharyngealHarmony illustrated above takes place, the structural description of the rule as stated forthe other languages is not met. We would now be spreading a linked node, not a floatingone. One effect of this may be to impose adjacency, and as a consequence, only(stressed) vowels which are melodically adjacent to the right edge of the root boundary290are targetted. Some evidence in favour of this may be found in harmony effects fromroot-final faucals in Nie2kepmxcin. Segmental faucals in root-final position often triggeralternation of suffixal /e/ > [a] if the suffix vowel is right-adjacent to the root. IfNte2kepmxcin's version of Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony spreads a linked TongueRoot node, then root-final segments with a lexical specification for Tongue Root willmeet the structural description of the rule. As with root-triggered retraction, progressiveeffects from segmental faucals onto suffix vowels are largely confined to /e/ and do nottarget /i/. I have found one example of /u/—> /o/ in Thompson and Thompson (1990).To summarize, the Nie?kepmxcin data presented here motivate a rule ofProgressive Harmony which retains the stress condition found in Coeur d'Alene,Shuswap, Kalispel and Spokane, but also imposes an adjacency requirement on itstargets. Furthermore, the rule must spread a linked rather than floating Tongue Rootnode. Suffixal /i/ was seen to be resistant to the rule spreading the Tongue Root nodeacross root boundaries, but not to the initial association of Tongue Root within the root.These facts are paralleled in Moses-Columbian (Czaykowska-Higgins, in preparation).6.2.6.5: Type-v: Retraction of consonantsThe final variant of Tongue Root harmony is one in which certain consonants aretargetted, both in root association and in suffixes. Examples of this have already beenseen in Nfe?kepmxcin. Those languages which allow the retraction of consonants limitthe targets to a subset of the Coronals: /c, s/ in Shuswap, /c, s, 1, 17 in Lillooet andN lekepmxcin, and possibly /n/ as well in Moses-Columbian.291All root vowels in these languages retract from /i, e/x, u, a/ to [E, a, o, A] under haromonyconditions.(82) Coronal targets of retraction in Lillooet (van Eijk 1985)tAsp^'to trill, vibrate'saiAl 'to drip in a string'pAmp-s3t^'to run fast without being able to stop'pm-0x 'to hurry'c'a?p-dliw's^'to have body-odour'Remnant (1990) accounts for the spread of retraction to /c, s 1, 17 in Lillooet byproposing that retraction is a rule of Minimal Scansion which targets all segments with aDorsal node in underlying representation. This includes all vowels at the point whenroot-triggered retraction applies. The alternation of /c, s 1,17 with [c, $, 1, 11 is accountedfor by representing /c, s, 1, 11 with a Coronal and a Dorsal node. These segments are thusopposed to the pure Coronals /t, n, n', c'/. Spreading the node Tongue Root to /c, s,1, 17 results in segments with three Place specifications: Coronal, Dorsal and TongueRoot. The attraction of this analysis is that it isolates the targets of root-triggeredretraction as a class bearing the node Dorsal. As noted by Remnant, velars are alsotargetted by this rule and so are predicted to be uvulars under harmony conditions.83Unfortunately, it is not clear that this prediction is verified.29283van Eijk (1985) notes that velars tend to assimilate somewhat to adjacent uvulars.For instance, velars and uvulars remain in contrast in retracted as well as unretractedroots and velars are transcribed in roots in which all retractable segments are otherwiseretracted, (83).(83) Uvular, velar contrast in retracted roots in Lillooetgig^'bad'^ 'make a mark by scratching'qW51'?'^ 'green, yellow'Retracted roots transcribed with a velarxwzap^'breeze'sAxam^[man's name]'to make a mark by scratching'It may be that these forms are mistranscribed, since van Eijk notes that velars anduvulars are very close in place of articulation, with /q', q'w/ distinguished from /k, kw/ bya fricative offglide. If one were to extend Remnant's analysis to Nie?kepmxcin andMoses-Columbian, both of which spread retraction to the same subset of the Coronalseries, then the prediction that velars become uvulars is likewise made. However, noneof Kinkade's or Thompson and Thompson's transcriptions suggest the alternation ofvelars with uvulars under the spread of root-triggered retractions. This would confirm thetranscription of Lillooet as is stands.A second possibility is that the retracting segments of Lillooet, Columbian andIsrfe?kepmxcin are [-anterior] Coronals (/c, s, 1, 17), whereas non-retracting It, X', 1, n, n',c7 bear no specification for anteriority (Czaykoswka-Higgins 1983 suggests the use of[anterior] in Moses-Columbian). This at least allows the necessary distinctions betweencoronals and does not bring in Dorsal segments in so doing. The disadvantage of thisanalysis is that it does not class retracting coronals with vowels as the sole targets ofharmony, and so it becomes difficult to account for Dorsal transparency and at the sametime allow only the targetting of [-anterior] coronals. If this analysis is pursued, the293targets of Tongue Root spreading have to be stipulated. The Tongue Root node willspread along the Tongue Root tier, predicting that only other Tongue Root segments willblock. This of course makes the hint of /q/-blocking in Shuswap of critical interest, butthere seems little doubt that systematic fieldwork is required to resolve this issue.6.2.6.6 Summary of SalishThis chapter has sought to motivate a fourth node, Tongue Root, for InteriorSalish. The motivation for this analysis can be summarized as follows. First, articulatorydescriptions of the class of uvulars, pharyngeals (and /r, r'/) suggest that tongue rootretraction is a common feature of these sounds. Pharyngeals are formed by retraction ofthe tongue root into the pharynx, uvulars by a constriction at the intersection of the oralcavity with the upper pharynx, and retracted coronals by a general tongue rootretraction—in what area of the pharynx we are not entirely sure. The net effect of suchretraction in Arabic, for example, is to reduce the cross-sectional area of the pharyngealcavity, resulting in a physical and acoustic similarity between these sounds. These datasuggest that the property relating pharyngeals, uvulars and retracted coronals to oneanother should reflect the articulatory characteristic they share, and therefore should havesomething to do with the tongue root as an articulator. Furthermore, we have seen thatfaucals function as a phonological class for purposes of Regressive Faucal Harmony inthree languages and the statement of several Morpheme Structure Constraints. It hasalready been noted that neither stricture nor manner features can be called upon to groupfaucals. The representations I have assumed to reflect these facts are repeated here.294(84) Interior Salish Faucals/r, r7^ Uvularsr+son] [-son]I IPlace Place295Coronal^Tongue RootPh aryngeals[+son]I PlaceoTongue RootDorsalo0Tongue RootFurther evidence for the Tongue Root node is its progressive spread in all of theInterior languages. The resultant vowel qualities are the same as those attested fromRegressive Faucal Harmony, but subject to parametric variation on Ii/ as a target andadjacency requirements between target and trigger.One way of investigating the plausability of the geometries in (84) is to pursue theimplications of their structure outside of the languages for which they are here proposed.An obvious prediction of (84) is that velars and uvulars, by virtue of sharing a Dorsalnode, are able to pattern together as a natural class. There are a number of argumentsfrom Salish and other languages in defense of this grouping, which have already beendiscussed (section 6.2.1), see also Elorrieta (1991).The other prediction of the feature geometries in (84) is that uvulars andpharyngeals may pattern together. This is of course demonstrated amply in the Coeurd'Alene data, as it is in Semitic. Formal arguments for this grouping in Semitic are madeby Hayward et al. 1988, McCarthy 1989, 1991) and are summarized in Section 6.2.1 atthe beginning of this chapter.There is also some cross-linguistic evidence for the classhood of pharyngeals anduvulars. Among the Northwest languages, Nootka (VVakashan) and some Northerndialects of Haida have phonemic pharyngeals in their inventories. Historically, theNootka pharyngeals derive from uvulars: *q',*qw' —> ; *x, *xw —> h (Jacobsen 1965).In fact, Kyuquot /h/ is sometimes pronounced [x] (Rose 1981). Modern Nootka is leftwithout the ejective uvular stops but retains the plain and labialized uvular stops. Haidapharyngeals are also historically derived from uvulars (Krauss 1979, Levine 1981). TheStoney pharyngeal is derived from what is represented /x/ but is phonetically [x].Further cross-linguistic evidence in support of the Tongue Root node, asdiscussed in Besse11 and Remnant (1989), is that it participates fully in combining withthe other articulator nodes to create complex segments. Sagey (1986) characterizescomplex segments with double (and possibly even triple) unordered articulations underthe Place node. Thus, Labial co-occurs with Dorsal in Igbo /EP/ and with Coronal toproduce Margi Coronal co-occurs with Dorsal in the Zulu click hi, and Czech /6/. Aprediction of having a fourth node is that it should likewise freely co-occur with the otherthree nodes in the production of complex segments. Thus we should find combinationsof Tongue Root with Labial, Coronal and Dorsal. Along with Cole (1987), Remnant(1990), McCarthy (1991), Elorrieta (1991) and Doak (1992), it has been argued thatuvular segments are examples of a Tongue Root/Dorsal combination. The TongueRoot/Coronal combination may be found in Salish on the retracted /r/, but also in Arabicemphatics such as A, ct, 0, s, r, z/ (the details vary from dialect to dialect). Finally, theTongue Root/Labial combination is attested in Salish /SW/ and in the Caucasian languageUbykh, as well as Arabic. Ubykh pharyngealizes a full range of labial segments,including /pC, bC, pc', wS, mi (Colarusso 1988). Colloquial Egyptian Arabic (Harrell1957) as well as Moroccan Arabic (Heath 1987) can spread emphasis onto /b, m, f/, aswell as /1/ and possibly ill in the case of Egyptian Arabic. Combinations of threearticulator nodes are also a possibility. Given that Interior Salish has rounded uvulars,296these would presumably be Labial-Dorsal-Tongue Root. Remnant (1990) argues thatretracted Lillooet /z/ is Coronal-Dorsal-Tongue Root. A Coronal-Dorsal-Labial segmentmight be a palatalized labial, which is reported for 13 of the 46 languages with roundedconsonants in Ruhlen (1975). I do not know of a segment type that combines all fourarticulator nodes.The feature geometries proposed for Interior Salish have been shown to interactwith harmony processes in a simple way. Harmony is basically the spread of the TongueRoot node. However, while some of the variation in harmony output on vowels can beaccounted for by underspecification, the cases of N-resistance found in Regressive FaucalHarmony (Kalispel and Spokane) as well as Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony(IsTie?kepinxcin and Moses-Columbian) had to be stipulated via language-specific con-straints against the association of the Tongue Root node with vowels which are [-back] orpossibly [+high].To use Coeur d'Alene as an example, the analysis assumed makes use ofunderspecification and adds the node Tongue Root to derive harmonic vowels (Doak1992). Thus /i1/ plus [Tongue Root] derives [a]. /i2/ plus [Tongue Root] derives [c]. /8/plus [Tongue Root] derives [a], and /u/ plus [Tongue Root] derives [s]. Elsewhere,redundancy rules derive [i, i, E, a] respectively. (85) gives the feature specification forvowels derived from [Tongue Root] spreading.(85) Derived vowelshighbackround^ +Addition of Tongue Root[a]^[E]^[a]^[31297Several aspects of the vowel sets in (85) bear on establishing the degree ofparallelism between the functioning of the Tongue Root node in Interior Salish andAfrican ATR systems. One such aspect (the interaction of harmony with redundancyrules) is discussed in section 6.4. Here I note that the vowel /c/ is a member of both theharmony and non-harmony sets. There is some indication in the literature on Coeurd'Alene that the harmony equivalent of /i/ is [e], while the non-harmonic [-high] frontvowel is best transcribed as [c] (Kinkade and Sloat 1972:27). However, Reichard doesnot consistently transcribe any distinction between these two vowels and Doak (1992)recognizes only one phonetic value for the front vowel represented /c/. Spectrographicinvestigation of the harmony vowels in Coeur d'Alene suggests that harmony [c] is ofvery similar value to phonemic Is!.298Figure 6.58 plots the same data in Figure 6.57, but averaged. Again, "i" "e", "u" are theunderlying vowels of the system. The Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony equivalents ofthese vowels are represented with "I", "A", "U" respectively; the Regressive faucalHarmony equivalents are represented with "E", "a", "o" respectively.29900aA-2500 -2000 -1500 -1000F2(Hz)Spkr: L. NicodemusFigure 6.58: Coeur d'Alene stressed vowels, means.The type of neutralization found with Coeur d'Alene E-vowels is also found inNez Perce, a Sahaptian language which neighbours Coeur d'Alene. Nez Perce is analysedby Hall and Hall (1980) with exactly the same sets of harmonic and nonharmonic vowelsas are found in Coeur d'Alene. In Nez Perce, however, it is reflexes of the /i/ vowelwhich participates in both the harmonic and non-harmonic sets. Hall and Hall (1980:215)analyze Nez Perce with an [advanced tongue root] hamony and comment that suchsurface neutralizations between vowels of each set are not unknown in other languagesshowing [advanced tongue root] harmony. Maasai (Nilo-Saharan), for instance,neutralizes the surface distinction between its [-advanced tongue root] and[+advanced tongue root] low vowel [a], but the phonemic distinction remains in thatsome /afs trigger vowel harmony while others do not (Hall and Hall 1980:230, footnote14). This is precisely the case with the Coeur d'Alene s-vowels.Observations of this sort, combined with the use of the Tongue Root node withthe interpretation [RTR] of course invites a more developed comparision between theSalish data and African ATR systems. It is to such a comparison that I now turn. I dealfirst with some of the general characteristics of ATR harmony systems and then explorethe indications of a close parallel between Interior Salish harmonies and ATR systems.6.3 African ATR systemsSome of the general characteristics of African ATR systems were noted in section2.1, i.e. that they are often morpheme-controlled or have dominant and recessive vowelsets. Of particular interest for the purposes of comparision with Interior Salish is thedescription and transcription of vowels from the two sets: /i, e, 3, 0, u/ versus A, s, a, 3,u/. The /i, e, 3, 0, u/ set is usually transcribed as higher and closer in vowel space thancorresponding vowels in the open [-advanced tongue root] set /1.., e, a, 3, u/. Hall and Hall(1980:207) describe the physiological interaction of tongue root retraction and tonguebody height as follows:'... as the tongue root is moved forward, the tongue body is compressedand therefore raised. Conversely, as the tongue root is retracted, the tonguebody is pulled down and therefore lowered. Either, or both, gestures, therefore,may result in some difference in the tongue body during the articulation ofthe two vowel sets...'While research has shown that tongue height has some independence from tongueroot activity (Ladefoged 1964) the feature [advanced tongue root] does interact300phonologically with height specifications. The fact that so many analyses must resort tostipulating constraints, particularly against the combination of [+high] with [-advancedtongue root] and [+low] with [+advanced tongue root] suggests some relationship at playwhich warrants explanation (e.g. Calabrese 1988, Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1989,Goad 1991). An attempt to place the well-documented relationship between [advancedtongue root] and height features within a formal, theoretical context is articulated byArchangeli and Pulleyblank (1992). They formally express the relationship betweenheight features and tongue root advancement/retraction in the following path conditions(Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1992:148ff).84(86) Gounded Path Conditions for [ATR], [RTR] and heighta) HI/ATR If +high then +ATR If +high then not -ATRb) LO/ATR If +low then -ATR If +low then not +ATRc) If +ATR then +high If +ATR then not -highd) ATR/LO If +ATR then -low If +ATR then not +lowe) RTR/HI If -ATR then -high If -ATR then not -highf) RTR/LO If -ATR then +low If -ATR then not -lowLanguages are argued to respect Path Conditions based to some extent on theirrelative strength, ranked as follows (Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1992:151).(87) Relative strength of implications between featuresVery strong: If [+low] then [-ATR]^If [+low] then not [+ATR]Strong:^If [+high] then [+ATR]^If [+high] then not [-ATR]Medium:^If [-back] then [+ATR]^If [-back] then not [-ATR]Weak:^If L-tone then [+ATR]^If L-tone then not [-ATR]84"A path condition is an implicational statement which determines whether paths between F-elements arewellformed or illformed" (Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1992:144). For the purposes of understanding theconditions stated in (86), one can regard F-elements as features. The term 'path' denotes an association orassociations between nodes, features or prosodic categories.301Archangeli and Pulleyblank note that the medium strength relationship between[-back] and [+advanced tongue root] is reflected by the fact that this condition is oftenrestricted to specific rule-governed contexts. That is to say, underlying representationsmay not have to respect the constraint, but a condition on the spread of [+advancedtongue root] may be that the target be [-back]. Furthermore, the weaker the condition, theless likely it is to be invoked in the phonology at any level. This is in contrast toconditions of higher strength, which are more likely to be invoked in the first place, aswell as respected at every level of representation.Consider now the indications that Salish Tongue Root harmonies are governed bythe principles outlined above. Take first of all the fact that the low vowel of all theInterior inventories (variously /e, E, X, a/) is targetted in all harmonies. This consistenttargetting of the low vowel for association with the Tongue Root node can be viewed as aconsequence of the very strong constraint: if [+low] then [-advanced tongue root]. If thisis the only condition present, and granted that /e, e, ai are [+low] vowels, thisconstraint predicts the targetting of /a/ alone, to the exclusion of /i, u/. This then mayunderlie those processes in which only /a/ is targetted, such as Regressive FaucalHarmony on Coeur d'Alene prefixes. Secondly, consider the isolation of /i/ as a non-participant. If fi/ is phonologically [+high], then its exceptionality is predicted by thestrong constraint: if [+high] then not [-ATR]. In other words, as a constraint on targets(and presumably underlying representations), [+high, Tongue Root] vowels areprohibited. This constraint is apparent in the application of redundancy rules onceharmony has applied in Coeur d'Alene, as will be discussed in section 4.4. If /i/ vowelsare better specified [-back], then their resistance to harmony is related to the mediumcondition: if [-back] then not [-ATR]. This would explain the variability in /i/-opacitysince this constraint is noted by Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1992) to be rule-specificrather than system-general.302A further characteristic of African ATR systems, as employed by the Kwa lan-guages, for example, is that certain alternations have a tendency to be neutralized(Stewart 1971). The contrast between /3/ with /a/ and 4, u/ with /i,u / are most commonlyeliminated. The loss of /i, u/ alternating with 4, u/ can be viewed as a consequence of thestrong tendency, noted and discussed above, for [+high] vowels to be [+advanced tongueroot] (Condition (a) in (86)). The loss of the 3 —a alternation can be viewed in relation tothe very strong tendency for low vowels to be [-ATR] (Condition (b) in (86)). Thephysiological basis for the loss of these alternations is noted by Stewart (1971) in his dis-cussion of the development of Kwa harmony systems. As a consequence of these neu-tralizations most Kwa languages display a seven vowel system: /i, e, c, a, 3, o, u/. Givensuch a system, harmony processes may be preserved by replacing the lost [-advancedtongue root] vowels (t, u) with mid vowels of the same tongue root position, resulting inATR alternations of the sort e—a; i—s; u-3.85 These are exactly the alternations found inOgori, a Kwa language described and analysed by Chumbow (1982) and later Calabrese(1988). Ogori has a root-controlled ATR harmony with affix vowels taking their ATRvalue from the nearest root vowel. Calabrese analyses the i—s; u-3 alternations as theresult of a filter *[+high, -ATR] and a clean-up rule which delinks [+high] and substitutes[-high], thereby resulting in [c, 3] rather than [t, u]. A filter *[+low, +ATR] likewiseprevents the more usual e—c alternation.86 Finally, [+low] is delinked as a repair strategy,resulting in [c] rather than [a].87 The details of such analyses need not concern us here.The relevant observation is that ATR alternations can occur independent of heightspecifications in the sense that a non-high vowel may act as the ATR alternate of a highvowel, although this is not necessarily the case.While Ogori presents a system much like Coeur d'Alene, in that ATR alternationsare not restricted to same height vowels, it remains the case that the Ogori inventory85D. Pulleyblank has pointed out to me that this is one of several possibilities.86Note the similarity to Condition (d) in (86).87See Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1992) for a discussion of similar neutralization in Okpe, and argumentsagainst the details of Calabrese's (1988) analysis.303permits four mid vowels, two back and two front (/e, c , o, a). Coeur d'Alene does notpresent such a system. However there are ATR systems which directly parallel the onefound in Coeur d'Alene.The Paleo-Siberian language Chukchi (also Chukchee) is described by Jakobson(1942), Bogoraz (1922), and Comrie (1981) as having a dominant-recessive harmonywhereby recessive vowels alternate: i—e, u—o and e—a. The dominant vowels /e, o, a/trigger alternation of the recessive set /i, e, o/ to [e, a, o] regardless of morpheme type.Of relevance to the present discussion is that several analyses of Chukchi argue that it isbest regarded as an ATR harmony system (Kenstowicz 1979, Calabrese 1988, Archangeliand Pulleyblank 1992). I note also that the phonologically active feature in Chukchiharmony is [-advanced tongue root] or [retracted tongue root], just as it is in Coeurd'Alene. Furthermore, Chukchi (or at least one dialect of it) is described by the sourcesmentioned above with its dominant vowels /e, a, o/ phonetically identical to the recessivealternates of /i, e ,u/, namely, [e, a, o]. This, I suggest, is exactly parallel to Coeurd'Alene in two respects: (i) there seems to be no phonetic distinction between therecessive vowels derived from harmony processes and the dominant vowels which triggerprogressive harmony; (ii) the harmony equivalent of /i/ is phonetically identical to non-harmonic /e/ in that both surface as [e]. Following Archangeli and Pulleyblank (1992) Isuggest that the apparent neutralization between harmonic [e] from lit and non-harmonic[e] from underlying /e/ in Chukchi (and similar neutralizations in Coeur d'Alene,Shuswap and IsTlekepmxcin) is a consequence of phonetically motivated processes asexpressed in the Grounding Conditions in (86) rather than extensive feature-changingrules of the sort proposed by Calabrese (1988) for the Ogori case.Finally, I note here two prevalent characteristics of African ATR harmonies thatare also found in Interior Salish, namely root-controlled harmony and dominant/recessivevowel sets. To take Coeur d'Alene as an example, consider the division of its vowels intoa non-harmonic and harmonic set as motivated in section 4.2.4.3. The underlying /i, c, u/304set can be viewed as recessive since it is this set which alternates under harmonyconditions. Once these vowels have harmonized with following faucals, a dominantvowel set is produced, which subsequently spreads [Tongue Root] regressively to the left-edge of the root. Progressive harmony is triggered by a subset of Coeur d'Alene roots:those with a floating Tongue Root node. It is therefore an example of a rootcontolledharmony.6.4 An alternative: [-high, +back]Some African ATR systems have been, and originally were, analysed as heightsystems (Tucker and Bryan 1956). The height analysis becomes more difficult tomaintain as the number of vowel heights present increases, but for systems with fewvowel heights, one is not forced to use the feature [advanced tongue root]. The precedingsection established some typological similarity between the Tongue Root node asinstantiated in Interior Salish and African ATR systems. The obvious question is: Canwhat I have termed Interior Salish Tongue Root harmony be analysed as a heightharmony? It is difficult to be entirely conclusive, but there are a number of aspects ofTongue Root behaviour in Interior Salish that mitigate against a height analysis.Before embarking on this question, it is interesting to note that Arabic emphasishas never been subject to a height analysis, perhaps because of the presence of uvularsand pharyngeals in the inventories, perhaps because the quality of emphatic vowels doesnot seem to involve changes which are readily interpretable as manipulations of heightspecifications (see section 4.3.1.5 for a discussion of Arabic emphasis as it affectsvowels).88 However, the description of vowel quality under emphasis readily approachesthat found in ATR systems with the full spectrum of alternation. So, for instance,Palestinian Arabic emphasis is described by Card (1983) with the following effect: /i, e,a, u/—> [i, e), a, u] given the non-emphatic realization of [i, e, e, u]. The distribution of88This observation is due to E. Czaykowska -Higgins.305emphatic /o/ is defective, so it is not included here. There is some similarity with thedescription of African ATR vowels in that /u/ —> [u]; /a/, which is phonetically [s],becomes [a]. Also of note is that the high front vowel is not affected and that /e/ merelybacks slightly. Ghazeli (1977), in his study of emphasis, notes that /i, it, e/ tend to blockthe alternation of the low vowel [x] to [a] in emphasis contexts of a number of dialects,particularly in left-to-right spread. He also reports blocking effects from palatal vowelsin Jordanian Arabic. Herzallah (1990) notes that the left-to-right assimilation ofconsonants to emphatics is blocked by /5, y/ in Palestinian Arabic and that /i, u/ arerelatively unaffected by a left-to-right spread of emphasis from consonants to vowels,whereas the low vowel /a/ is clearly retracted to [a] (Younes 1982). Card (1983) alsonotes the blocking behaviour of /5, y/ in Palestinian Arabic, and adds /i:/ and i/-# to thelist. I make no attempt here to evaluate these claims with respect to the Salish dataalready discussed. Suffice it to note that height and frontness clearly interactphonologically with Arabic emphasis in ways that invite a comparision with both theSalish and African ATR material. Furthermore, given the considerable degree ofinventory and phonological parallelism between Arabic and Salish, the fact that Arabicemphasis has never been analysed in terms of height may be tellingHowever, this is mere speculation given the current state of our understanding ofthe relationship between African ATR harmonies, Arabic emphasis, and Salish retraction.From a theoretical point of view it remains crucial to be aware of the implications of ananalysis using [-high, +back] for Interior Salish harmonies, since it is the obviousalternative to the use of a fourth node. Indeed, it has been argued that such features canbe used to describe harmony processes in Coeur d'Alene, for example. The analysis ofJohnson (1975) spreads [-high, +back], but without the benefit of underspecification andfeature geometry. He also uses scalar features, so it is difficult to determine the effects ofhis analysis in terms of binary features. An example of the use of [-high +back] withincurrent frameworks is Doak (1989), subsequently revised in Doak (1992).306I consider first the general implications of a [-high, +back] analysis of Coeurd'Alene harmonies and then consider Doak's (1992) analysis.Against [-high, +back] in general.For the purposes of exploring the consequences of a Dorsal feature analysis ofCoeur d'Alene harmonies, I assume that velars are characterized by a Dorsal node;uvulars are [-high, +back] under the same Dorsal node; pharyngeals bear the samegeometry under Place as uvulars, but are [+sonorant]. /r, r'/ will be Coronal and Dorsal,sharing a Dorsal node and [-high, +back] with uvulars and pharyngeals. The faucal classis thus uniquely referenced by a Dorsal node dominating [-high, +back].89These geometries predict that /r, r'/ can pattern with velars for co-occurrencerestrictions which we know must be stated at the level of the Dorsal node. Reference tothe Dorsal node is necessary in order to capture the prohibition against *KVQ/QVKroots, which is common throughout Interior Salish (see section 4.2). One might objecthere that since it has been shown that /r, r'/ are resonants we would not expect them topattern with velar obstruents in root morpheme structure constraints which referenceidentity of manner as well as place. However, consider the following case: It has beennoted that roots with C1 = uvular (or pharyngeal) and C2 = /r, r'/ are prohibited, hence*QVr (section 6.2.1). This is true for all of the languages with /r, r'/. This morphemestructure constraint ignores the fact that /r, r'/ are resonants but /q, q', qw, q'w, x, xvv/ areobstruents, and so must be stated purely by reference to place specifications shared bypost-velars and /r, f/. If what is unique to faucals are the features [-high, +back], thenboth of these features must be referenced by the *QVr constraint, but to the specificexclusion of the node Dorsal, since reference to Dorsal will include velars in thismorpheme structure constraint. That it is incorrect to draw velars into the *QVrconstraint is made clear by the appearance of roots with C1 a velar and C2 =/r, r'/ both891 use both [-high, +back] since both are used in previous analyses.307within Coeur d'Alene and in the other /r/-languages. A sampling of such roots is given in(88).(88) KVr rootsCoeur d'Alene kwar^'yellow'xwar^'tremble, quiver'gwar^'scrape'gwar'^'be silvery, clear'Spokane^kwr(i)^'yellow'k'wr(i)^'cracked open'Colville^kri2^'glance at'kr' 'dry,k'r^'cut'Columbian^kir'^'look, see'k'ar 'cut'kwrit^'gold'xwarp^'shake'It has already been established that to state the constraint against velars anduvulars of identical manner in a root (*KVQ/QVK), a shared node must be referenced.Given that this node is the Dorsal node, this constraint must ignore the fact that uvularsare differentiated from velars by the Dorsal node features [-high, +back]; in other words itmust be stated at the level of the Dorsal node itself, regardless of its dependents. We alsoknow that uvulars and /r, r'/ are forbidden to co-occur, but this time by reference to theshared Dorsal features [-high, +back], so as to avoid including velars in this constraint.We must therefore state two morpheme structure constraints for Dorsal consonants, onethat permits reference to the node, another which expressly forbids reference to the node,and instead must refer to both features under the node. The alternative statement of root308morpheme structure constraints, based on the feature geometries argued for in (1), doesnot encounter this problem. The *QVr constraint can be stated by reference to theTongue Root node that faucals share. As such, it is impossible to include /r,r'/ inmorpheme structure constraints referencing the node Dorsal, since /r, f/ are not Dorsal.The *QVK/KVQ constraint is stated by reference to a shared Dorsal node and does notpresent the possibility of including pharyngeals, as required. The use of a dorsal node tocharacterise pharyngeals also makes the prediction that velar-pharyngeal correspondencesare a possibility. There is no evidence for this class in Coeur d'Alene, or in the otherlanguages, as far as I know.Such considerations establish a weak argument against purely dorsal uvularsbased on the value of simplicity and economy, but it is not a conclusive argument.However, a serious problem for the analysis of uvulars and pharyngeals as Dorsals isvelar transparency to harmony processes as illustrated for Coeur d'Alene in section6.2.6.3. There are two possible analyses of Regressive Faucal Harmony under theassumption that uvulars are [-high, +back] Dorsals. If Regressive Faucal Harmonyspreads the Dorsal node and its features [-high, +back] from faucals, with MaximalScansion identifying vowels as targets, the Dorsal node of velars will nonetheless blockthe spread of the harmony, since the spreading node must travel along the Dorsal tier.One way around this would be to argue that the Dorsal node and its features occupy aseparate (presumably morphemic) tier. As far as I know, there is no independentevidence for such an analysis of Regressive Harmony in Coeur d'Alene. It would alsorequire the delinking of Dorsal: [-high, +back] from the faucal consonants which triggerthe harmony.9° A second alternative is to spread only the features [-high, +back], withoutthe dominating node Dorsal. If Maximal Scansion identifies only vowels as targets,velars will now be transparent to the harmony and will not themselves be targets. While90This is not to say that there is no evidence for the Tongue Root node having morphemic status in InteriorSalish. There is evidence that some cases of Progressive Harmony in Shuswap and Lillooet conveyconsistently negative meaning, and so might be argued to be a negative morpheme, as in Remnant (1990).309this is a technical possibility it has two drawbacks, one theory-related and the other Coeurd'Alene-related. On the theory front, the spreading of all features under a node isreasonably considered evidence for the spread of the dominating node. Otherwise, tworules must be stated: Spread [-high] and Spread [+back]. This in turn predicts that theprocesses are separate, and one might expect evidence of [-high] spreading independentof [+back] spreading. To my knowledge there is no evidence in Coeur d'Alene for theseparation of Regressive Harmony into two feature-spreading rules.A final problem with the use of [-high, +back] to characterise Coeur d'Aleneharmony is simply that harmonized vowels do not all become [-high, +back]. While /u/>[o] and /ii, e/ > [a], /i2/ becomes [c], which is not a [+back] vowel.91 This observation isfamiliar from the comparision of Interior Salish harmony with African ATR systems andwith Arabic emphasis, where similar facts hold and neither emphatic vowels nor ATRvowels become [+back]. Neither is it sufficient to spread just [-high]. The alternations/u/ > [o] and /j/> [c] are accommodated by this, but /e/ > [a] is not.Doak (1992) pursues the relationship between the fourth node, which she termsPharygneal, and [-high, +back] in a very interesting way. Her underspecification of theCoeur d'Alene vowel inventory was assumed earlier, but without full exemplification ofthe interaction of harmony with redundancy rules. I repeat Doak's underspecificationhere, along with the full set of redundancy rules which she proposes.(89) Underlying vowels in Coeur d'Alene (Doak 1992)ii i2 E Uhighbackround91The fi/ --> [c] alternation is attested in Shuswap and Lillooet also.310Redundancy rules:[ 1—> [-round][ ] —> [-back]/[-round][ ] —> [+high][ ] —> [+back]Doak proposes that both Regressive Faucal and Progressive Pharyngealharmonies spread an autosegmental Pharyngeal node. The spread of this node invokesits own set of Redundancy rules.(90) Harmony vowelsii^i2^E^Uhighback^_round +Addition of Pharyngeal node[a]^[c]^[a]^[3]Redundancy rules:[ ] —> [-high]/[Pharyngeal][ ] —> [+back]/[Pharyngeal][ ] —> [-round]Of interest to the analysis of Coeur d'Alene harmonies as Tongue Root processesis the need to state harmony-specific redundancy rules. These rules are necessary sinceotherwise (89) would generate the feature [+high] on the harmonic versions of /ii, i2, W.This would not only be phonetically bizarre, but the [a] of /e/, which is [-high] by virtueof underlying specification, is phonetically identical to the [a] of /i/, which is [+high] byredundancy rule. Clearly we do not want [ ] —> [+high] to apply to harmony vowels.As a consequence, the rule [ ] —> [-high]/[Pharyngeal] is required. This rule reflects311very clearly the association between being Pharyngeal and not being [high]. As such itcan be viewed as an instantiation of the Grounded Path Condition RTR/HI (if [-ATR]then [high]; if [-ATR] then not [+high]). Furthermore, free application of the non-harmony redundancy rule [ ] —> [-back]/[-round] must be blocked, just in the case ofharmony, since it will otherwise apply to all vowels specified [-round] by the context-freerule [ ] —> [-round]. This will be all vowels except /u/, and we do not want [-back] toapply to the harmonic version of /i1/ or /E/ since both surface as [a]. Doak's rule[ ] —> [+back]/[Pharyngeal] expresses the affiliation between backness and TongueRootedness. This relationship is considered a constraint of medium weakness byArchangeli and Pulleyblank (1992). Their formulation is: If [-back] then [+ATR], theinverse is: If [-back] then not [-ATR]. From this one can derive the affiliation illustratedin Coeur d'Alene between being Tongue Root/Pharyngeal/[-ATR] and being [+back].Viewed through the scope of Doak's underspecification, Coeur d'Alene harmonyexemplifies exactly the principles reflected in Archangeli and Pulleyblank's GroundingConditions, even though the harmony rules themselves do not forbid the association ofTongue Root with the underlying [-back] vowel /i2/. A further advantage of havingCoeur d'Alene harmony subject to Grounding Conditions to is that the need for extrinsicordering of redundancy rule application is eliminated.926.5 ConclusionsThis chapter has argued for the representation of Interior Salish uvulars,pharyngeals and retracted Coronals with a fourth node under Place, termed Tongue Root.Given the parallelism between the Salish and Semitic post-velar inventories, and themotivation for a fourth node in both language groups to characterize the uvulars andpharyngeals, the obvious question is: what is the distribution and representation ofInterior Salish laryngeals? In brief, the laryngeals of Interior Salish do not pattern with921 thank Douglas Pulleyblank for pointing this out to me.312the class of segments characterized under the fourth node (Besse11 and Czaykowska-Higgins 1991). To take Coeur d'Alene as an example one last time, laryngeals do notpattern with the class of faucals for the purposes of any of the morpheme structureconstraints or harmony processes that phonologically define the class of faucals.Recall that Coeur d'Alene does not allow the high vowels /i, u/ to occur inC1VC2(C3) roots where C2 or C3 is a uvular, pharyngeal or /r, r'/. This constraint doesnot include laryngeals. Roots with laryngeals in C2 position occur with all of theunderlying vowels, /i, E , 1.1/:(91) Coeur d'Alene laryngeal rootsCiVh(C)^34 examplespih^'rise to the surface'^wi?^cry out, shout'p'i? 'crush by pressing' wih 'dog barks'ml?^'bore'^ti?^'pound, hit'Cu?/h(C)^6 examplespu2s^'bubble, swell, ferment'p'u?t^'be greasy, oily'su?t 'stretch'CE?/h(C)^7 examplesfen^'be on opposite side'cE?xvi^'caress'yE? 'procure game'Furthermore, laryngeals do not pattern with uvulars and pharyngeals to conditionlong-distance Regressive Faucal Harmony on suffix, root or prefix vowels in any of theInterior languages. (92) illustrates this with data from Coeur d'Alene. An expected/E/ —> [a] alternation does not take place in prefixes which are known to harmonizegiven the presence of a faucal in a root or suffix.313(92) Larygneals not trigger for Regressive Faucal HarmonyPrefix harmonyi) 6Et42cm-is-n-t-s^LOC-4one sits-be in act of-TRANS -3OBJ-3SUBJ[t2EmBanc] 'he sat on it'ii) Et-\lpu? 4=itkwE2^LOC4bubbleffoam=waterNziptatitkwel 'bubbling on the surface of water'iii) cEn47im-Et-n-t^LOC-4try/cause-doubtful-TRANS-2SUBJ 3OBJIMPERATIVE[czn? imEtant]^Wait for him!'This is, of course, consistent with the distribution of vowels in roots with C2 alaryngeal, illustrated in (91). Turning to the root morpheme structure constraint againstidentical consonants in C1 or C2 position of a C1VC2(C3) root, laryngeals co-occur with[-continuant] obstruents of all places of articulation, including uvular stops (see alsoJimmie (in preparation).(93) Roots with laryngeals and uvular stopsCoeur d'Alene^4cfi?^'stick to, wedge into'Spokane^4qe2 'narrow'4qe?(6)^'suck, nurse'Niekepmxcin^42eq' 'fasten'Finally, consider the following data from Lillooet, where Regressive FaucalHarmony is constrained by melodic adjacency. Any consonant intervening between afaucal (uvulars, pharyngeals, /1/ < *r and /z, z'/) and a preceding vowel will block theprocess, but /2/ does not.314(94) Lillooet glottal transparency (van Eijk 1985; Remnant 1990)26qwx?^'to drink'^ /u/ > [3]262qwx? 'to drink a little bit'xw?az^'no, not'^ /x/ > [a]xw2a2z1-xt 'good for nothing'x'gq^'to arrive here'^/i!> [s]ke?x 'cranky (like a baby)'Remnant (1990) proposes that the unique transparency of PI in Lillooet isaccounted for if it is Placeless. The general exclusion of laryngeals from the class ofsegments characterized by the fourth node motivated for Interior Salish can beaccommodated if the traditional analysis of laryngeals as placeless segments ismaintained (Steriade 1987, Besse11 and Czaykowska-Higgins 1991).Finally, Salish evidence supports the pre-generative analysis of laryngeal /h, ?/ asvoiceless obstruents, fricative and stop respectively. As such, laryngeals bear values forthe feature [continuant]. This position, taken by Ladefoged 1971, Hyman 1975, Lass1976, Durand (1986), Shaw 1991b and Besse11 1992 is very different from the analysis oflaryngeals as [+sonorant] (Chomsky and Halle 1968, Halle 1989) or unable to bear valuesfor continuancy (Halle 1989, McCarthy 1988, Lombardi 1990, Padgett 1991).Chapter 7 presents and defends the analysis of laryngeals as placeless obstruents,based on the cross-linguistic distribution of laryngeals, as well as specific data fromInterior Salish and a range of other languages.315Chapter Seven: Glottal phonology7.0 IntroductionThere are a number of representations for the glottal segments /?, h, flu currentlyand historically available. As discussed in Chapter 3, the default descriptivist assumptionis that /2/ is a laryngeal stop (hence the term 'glottal stop') and /h, flu are laryngealfricatives. However, the generative tradition suggests otherwise. Chomsky and Halle(1968) propose that glottal stop and /h/ are (i) glides and (ii) [-Flow] articulations. Thelatter claim has a current equivalent in work in Semitic (Hayward and Hayward 1989;McCarthy 1991) and Nisgha, a Tsimshianic language spoken in British Columbia asanalysed by Shaw (1991b). These authors argue that glottals in these languages arePharyngeal in place of articulation. One phonological consequence of this specificationin both Semitic and Nisgha is the phonological lowering of vowel quality.The claim that glottals are glides, bearing the major class features [-consonantal,+sonorant] is variously maintained, modified and challenged in the literature. However,the continuing trend in the modern generative tradition is to regard glottals as glides, asrevealed by such simple procedures as re-structuring a phoneme inventory. For example,Yip (1991) presents Bloomfield's inventory of Menomini (Bloomfield 1962) in a way thatimposes a symmetry between /2, h/ and /j, w/.(1)^Menomini (Algonquian, Wisconsin: Bloomfield 1962)consonants: p, t, tf, k, 2, f, h, m, n.semivowels: j, wYip (1991) version of Bloomfield (1962)p^t^tf^kS316The Chomsky and Halle (1968) position that /?, h/ are [+sonorant] by definition,on a par with vowels and glides, is reiterated by Halle (1989). See also Jakobson, Fantand Halle (1951), Piggott (1988) and Yip (1982) for this assumption. However,modifications of the glide theme can be found in Shane (1973) and more recently inStevens and Keyser (1989), all of whom analyse glottals as [-sonorant] on the basis that[+sonorant] segments are invariably voiced, and of course /?, h/ are not voiced. Theseauthors maintain that 11, h/ remain [-consonantal] since they have no constriction withinthe oral cavity, but they can and do bear values for the feature [continuant]. However,McCarthy (1988) and Halle (1989) propose that glottals cannot bear values forcontinuancy because they do not have supra-laryngeal constriction. This is contrary toChomsky and Halle (1968), Shane (1973) and Stevens and Keyser (1989). Furthermore,the Chomsky and Halle (1968) position that glottals are [-consonantal] is challenged byLadefoged (1971), Hyman (1975) and Shaw (1991b), all of whom argue that glottals are[+consonantal, -sonorant ] and bear values for [continuant]. All current proposals sharethe use of laryngeal features such as [spread glottis] and [constricted glottis] todifferentiate glottal stop from /h/. These views are summarized in (2).(2) Proposed representations for glottalsa) [low]/Pharyngeal: Chomsky and Halle 1968; McCarthy 1989, 1991; Shaw1991bb) [-cons,+son]: Chomsky and Halle (1968); Yip 1982; Piggot 1988; Halle 1989c) [-cons, -son, +/- cont]: Shane 1973, Stevens and Keyser 1989d) *[+/- cont]: McCarthy 1988, 1989; Halle 1989; Lombardi 1990, Padgett 1991e) f+cons, -son, +/- cont: Ladefoged 1971; Hyman 1975; Shaw 1991bf) [+spr gl, +const gl]: assumed by all current analysesThis chapter aims to motivate and construct a representation for glottals whichaccommodates the data presented in the literature for the various representations, butrelates apparently disparate phenomena by reference to a single representation. It isargued that laryngeals are not glides, but obstruents which in the default case are317Placeless. Further, assuming privative features (Avery and Rice 1989, Ito and Mester1986, Lombardi 1991) glottals will have no Laryngeal Node or Laryngeal Node featuresunless glottalization and/or aspiration function as phonemic phonation features in alanguage. In such a case Laryngeal Node features are available to /2, h/ and may berequired to capture interactions between /C'/ and /2/; /Ch/ and /h/ (e.g. Kashaya, Buckley1992). It should be noted however that not all languages with /C'/ or /Ch/ necessarilyexhibit interaction with /2/ and /h/ respectively (e.g. Dakota, Shaw 1980, 1989). Therepresentations proposed are given in (3).1(3) Glottals/2/^ /h/-sonorant[c -osnosnoonr a n ttEi-consonantalj[-continuant]The representations in (3) are the most reduced ones proposed to date, thoughparts have precursors. For placeless glottals with laryngeal node features see Clements(1985), Steriade (1987), McCarthy 1988 and Avery and Rice (1988). Lass (1976, 1984)and Iverson (1989) present analyses of placeless glottals with Laryngeal Node andcontinuancy features. For glottals as obstruents and not glides see Ladefoged (1971),Durand (1986), Lass (1976), Shaw (1991b), Padgett (1991) and Buckley (1992).2lA comment of the use of [-continuant] in (3) is in order. From a systemic point of view it would appearthat [-continuant] is the unmarked value for continuancy, since languages can have stops without fricativesand not vice-versa. (3) reflects this general fact. However, Shaw (1991a, 1991b) presents careful andpersuasive argumentation that the phonologically relevant value for continuancy in Tahltan (Athabaskan)and Nisgha (Tsimshian) is [-continuant]. Both languages have extensive affricate inventories. While it isnot clear if this is a factor in the phonological prominence of [-continuant] in these languages or not, itremains the case that the processes examined in this chapter reference [-continuant] rather than[+continuant]. The point that glottals bear continuancy values is not compromised by debate over whichvalue is marked.2Neither Padgett (1991) nor Buckley (1992) propose the use of continuancy values on glottals, even thoughthey represent them as [+consonantal, -sonorant]. Both use Laryngeal node features to distinguish /2/ from/11/.318Akinlabi (1991) argues for Yoruba /h/ as a placeless glide that bears continuancy, and notlaryngeal, features. The representation argued for here has its closest parallel in theDependency Phonology view that /2/ is the prototypical stop and /h/ is the prototypicalfricative, with [-voice] the unmarked voice value for obstruents (Lass 1976, Durand 1986,Iverson 1989). One of the innovations proposed here is that glottals do not necessarilyrely on laryngeal node features for distinction in an inventory, and in the default case,they do not.The analysis of glottals as Placeless consonants provides an explanation for whyglottals and coronals sometimes behave alike in being transparent to consonant harmonyand their neutrality in Morpheme Structure Constraints stated on Place specifications(Paradis and Prunet 1991, Shaw 1991a, Yip 1989, 1991). The Placelessness of glottalscan also be understood to underlie their apparently universal transparency to nasalprosodies (cf. Piggott 1992).3 Third, the representations in (2) relate the appearance of /h/and /?/ as epenthetic consonants with schwa as the epenthetic vowel. Both are the Place-less segments of their respective major classes, that is to say, consonant (stop andfricative) and vowel. Fourth, (3) enables a very natural formulation of debuccalization,that is to say delinking of Place, with the remaining value for continuancy predicting theoutput [2] or [h]. Fifth, the Salish data examined in Chapter 5 and 6 require at least theanlaysis of laryngeals as Placeless segments to accomodate their exclusion not only fromthe class of faucals, but from any class defined by an articulator node (Bessell andCzaykowska-Higgins 1991, Bessell 1992). McCarthy (1991) notes that Placelesslaryngeals are needed even in inventories with Pharyngeal laryngeals, such as Semitic.The same is true for Nisgha (Shaw 1991b).This chapter is organized as follows. Section 1 presents and argues against thestandard generative assumptions that glottals are (i) glides and (ii) [+low]. Section 2 uses3The McCarthy (1991) proposal for Pharyngeal glottals in Semitic predicts that they should not betransparent to nasal harmony. The same would be true for Pharyngeal glottals in Nisgha (Shaw 1991b).Nisgha does not have a nasal harmony process and neither does Semitic, so it is difficult to test thisprediction.319Durand's (1986) analysis of Malay data to illustrate problems with the generativeanalysis. Section 3 argues that debuccalization, properly understood, is strong evidencefor /?/ as the minimal stop, /h/ as the minimal fricative. Section 4 explores therelationship between Laryngeal Node features and the representations proposed in (3) forh/. Section 5 cites cases in the literature which argue for glottals bearing continuancyvalues. Section 6 concludes by considering how the representations for /2, h/ are licensedby all inventories. Section 7 concludes this chapter.7.1 The Sound Pattern of EnglishThe Chomsky and Halle (1968:303) major class features identify the glides /w, j/and the two glottals /h, 2/ as [-consonantal, -syllabic, +sonorant]. Distinctions within theclass are made through the use of tongue body features so that /j/ is [+high, -back], /w/ is[+high, +back] and 12, h/ are [+low].(4) Glides Glottal glides Homorganic V'sconsonantalj w h^2 i^u^x- -sonorantsyllabic+ + +^+ +^+^++^+^+high + + +^+^-low +^+ +back + - +(roundcontinuant ++ +^)voiceSeveral comments on (4) are in order. First, /h/ has a [-continuant] homorganicpartner, /2/. As such /?/ is the only [-continuant] glide. Elsewhere [-continuant] defines320the class of stops and affricates with variation in continuancy values in otherwiseidentical feature matrices uniquely confined to homorganic stop and fricative pairs (andarguably, affricates). Second, the use of the tongue body feature How] to characterizeh/ is troublesome from an articulatory perspective. Lowering of the tongue body doesnot figure in any phonetic descriptions of glottal articulation. A reference is usually madeto vocal fold activity: adducted to the point of closure for 121, abducted to the point ofvoicelessness and/or aspiration in the case of /h/ (see sections 4.2.9, 4.2.10 for adiscussion of glottal articulation). Te use of [+low] for laryngeals is not overtly discussedin Chomsky and Halle (1968) where it is introduced to distinguish pharyngeals fromuvulars. Its presence on /?, h/ is presumably to accommodate the Semitic guttural class.(5) Tongue Body Features (Chomsky and Halle 1968)Palatals^Velars^Uvulars^Pharyngeals Glottalsc k q WC^7/hhigh +^+^- -low +^+back^+^+^+Third, under SPE assumptions the vowel features [high, back, low] define a set ofcorresponding homorganic vowels and glides: /j/ is the [-syllabic] counterpart of /i/ and/w/ the [-syllabic] counterpart of [u]. The vowel to match a [+low, -high, -back] glidesuch as /?/ or /h/ should be /x/, as illustrated in (4). i—y and u—w alternations as aconsequence of syllabification processes are well-documented cross-linguistically,occurring in Salish (Thompson and Thompson 1992), Wakashan (Lincoln and Rath1986), Tsimshian (Tarpent 1987), Malay (Durand 1987), Menomini (Bloomfield 1962),Bantu (Brown 1970), Yoruba (Akinlabi 1991), Berber (Guerssel 1986) etc. If glottals areglides we should find cases of ?/h alternation to confirm their feature analysis (see 5).Such cases are in fact, difficult to come by. I review here those cases put forward as321evidence for a feature relationship between glottals and a low /a/-vowel and conclude thatthey are not entirely convincing, Semitic and Nisgha excluded for the time being.Prunet (1990) presents two cases, not of a—h alternations per se, but of spreadingfrom low vowels to produce /hi-like onsets. Carrier (Athabaskan) spreads features from/i, u/-initial words to occupy onset position, producing [, w/y] onsets respectively.Word-initial Al also spreads its features to onset position, producing a sound thatphonetically varies between [h] and [x]. This same epenthetic [h/x] onset occurs before/a/-initial words. Prunet (1990) analyses this as the spread of [-Flow] from /A, a/ to onsetposition.Axininca Campa (Payne 1981, Yip 1983) is suggested as another example of[low] spread from /a/ to onset position. In this case, the resultant onset is described byPayne (1981) as a velar glide involving little tongue movement from /a/. It is interpretedas a pharyngeal glide by Yip (1983). In both the Carrier and the Axininca case then,there are phonetic indications that the epenthetic onset indeed has a tongue gestureinherited from the conditioning vowel. As such, it is perhaps better understood as aphonetic pharyngeal/uvular gesture as indicated by Yip (1983) for Axininca and thetranscription of [x] in Carrier. In Carrier the variation with [h] may be explicable sincethe creation of [x] violates structure preservation whereas [h] does not: /x/ is notphonemic in Carrier, /h/ is.A third case presented by Prunet (1990) is the spread of [low] from Tigre ejectivesto lower /A/ to [a] (Lowenstamm and Prunet 1985; 1987). This case bears on the generalrepresentation of post-velar segments in Semitic. The Ethiopian Semitic ejectives arecognate with the emphatics of Standard Arabic, which are analysed by McCarthy (1991)and Herzallah (1990) with a Pharyngeal place of articulation. McCarthy (1991) hasargued for the representation of Semitic laryngeals in general with a Pharyngeal place ofarticulation involved in, among other things, the conditioning of low vowels under certain322phonologically and morphologically conditioned circumstances (see section 6.1). TheTigre data are presumably another case in point.4A fourth case put forward by Prunet (1990) is that of Nupe (Hyman 1970), whereCC clusters from Hausa loan words are broken up by [u] if C2 is a Labial, by [a] if C2 is/h/ and by [i] elsewhere. Thus it appears that /h/ is conditioning the open/low vowel [a]rather than the close vowel /i/. Prunet (1990) interprets this as the reverse of the Carrierand Axininca cases. That is to say, Nupe spreads the feature [+low] from Al to [a]. Apossible analysis of these data is that the inserted vowel is unspecified for Place and takeslabiality from a Labial (to produce [u]) and takes palatality or height from consonantshaving such features. This amounts to the rest of the inventory since Hausa has no post-velars and neither does Nupe. In the case of /h/, the epenthetic vowel receives no Placespecifications as such, but adopts the open and unconstricted vocal tract appropriate for asegment which is not defined by a lingual gesture, resulting in [a]. Presumably this islow-level co-articulatory process, much like the schwa-colouring processes described forInterior Salish (Bessell and Czaykowska-Higgins 1991).It seems then that there is a relationship of laxing/opening between vowels andlaryngeals which is not equivalent to that of lowering: /i/ does not lower to [e,E], nor does/u/ lower to [o,o]. Prunet (1990) also notes that in Carrier a vowel is laxed before alaryngeal: /ih/ --> [th]; /uh/ --> [uh]. Significantly, /A/ --> [a] under the same conditions.As a consequence, there is a relationship of laxing/opening between vowels andlaryngeals which is not equivalent to that of lowering 0/ does not beome [e/e], or /u/ -->[o,o]). This same relationship is also found in Interior Salish, where vowels in thecontext of laryngeals often 'lax' but do not approach the quality found in the context ofuvulars or pharyngeals. Bloomfield (1962) reports that Menomini vowels have their most'open' allophones in the context of laryngeals. These descriptions all suggest that what is4Prunet (1990) follows Lowenstamm and Prunet (1985; 1987) in assigning [+low] to Tigre ejectives.Translated into McCarthy's (1991) terms, they would bear a Pharyngeal place node at least. The translationinto phonetic ejectives is presumably a language-specific implementation process.323transcribed as [a] is the lax counterpart of an unspecified vowel [a]. As a consequence itis not clear that the spread of [1-low] necessarily captures laryngeal effects, or indeed thatall such effects should be captured featurally since the processes are often very late. Alaxing process may be at work in Nupe also, but the status of the Nupe epenthetic voweland its relationship to the vowel system proper needs to be examined more closely forthis argument to be convincing.I know of one other case where central [a] (not [a]) is analysed as the vocalicalternate of /h/, and that is Haisla, a Wakashan language spoken in British Columbia,documented by Lincoln and Rath (1986). However, while Lincoln and Rath presentmany examples of i—j, u—w alternation depending on position in the syllable, there are noexamples of surface alternation between /h/ and /a/. This fact is commented on in Bach's(1990) analysis of word-formation in Haisla and is used to ground his argument againstLincoln and Rath's analysis of /11/ as the [-syllabic] alternant of /a/.I conclude from this that there is not yet much really convincing evidence (outsideof Semitic and Nisgha) for feature identity between 12, h/ and [+low]. The Carrier andAxininca cases indicate that what is created by low spread is actually a pharyngeal/uvularsegment rather than a purely laryngeal segment, the Tigre case falls into the Semiticcamp, and so is not representative of the general case. Nupe requires further examinationto see if /h/ is specified [-Flow] or is interpreted as unconstricted.57.1.1 Use of [+Iow]The positive value of the feature [low] is intended by Chomsky and Halle (1968)to refer to a low tongue body position: "Low sounds are produced by lowering the bodyof the tongue below the level that it occupies in the neutral position, non-low sounds are50ne other possible candidate for laryngeal lowering should be mentioned. There is historical evidence forthe lowering of short /i, u/ to [s, 3] by Gothic 'h', presumed to be [h] lowered from (Greek) x of Proto-Germanic, rather than [x]. I thank D. Ringe and G. Cardona for bringing this case to my attention.Colarusso (1988) also notes this evidence for h-lowering. There is also the question of the Proto-IndoEuropean laryngeals, of which *h2 changes adjacent */e/ to */a/, among other things. I will notattempt to debate the Proto-IndoEuropean laryngeals here.324produced without such lowering of the body of the tongue." (p.305). SPE uses [-Flow] forthe /a-series/, pharyngeals and glottals. However, as Kenstowicz and Kisseberth(1979:250) note, [+low] is an inappropriate characterization of laryngeal articulations,which by all accounts do not involve tongue body movement or supralaryngealconstriction independent of that supplied by abutting segments (Sweet 1877, Pike 1943,Malmberg 1963, Ladefoged 1982, Catford 1988). This criticism is repeated in Keating(1988). The problem is as follows. Throughout Chomsky and Halle (1968) the feature[low] is used, as defined above, to refer to a low tongue body position. However, theonly plausible phonetic interpretation of it as applied to /2, h/ is by reference to a lowplace of articulation. Given this, nowhere else in Chomsky and Halle (1968) are tonguebody features interpreted as place of articulation features. This use of [+low] for glottalsis therefore inconsistent with the use of other articulator features in the framework, andinconsistent with the definition given for the feature.However, Chomsky and Halle are not forced to use [+low] to uniquely identifyglottal articulations. Positive values for [anterior] and [coronal] specifications arepermitted to combine freely with negative values for [high, back, low]. For example,dentals, interdentals and alveolars are [+anterior, +coronal, -high, -back, -low].However, the sequence [-anterior, -coronal, -high, -back, -low] is deemed non-existant inconsonants (p307). Curiously, this is the only unattested but physiologically plausible6feature combination proposed in Chomsky and Halle (1968). Without this arbitraryprohibition against [-syllabic] segments with negative values for all articulatory gestures,Chomsky and Halle could distinguish r2, h/ from /w, j/ and at the same time accuratelyreflect the lack of supralaryngeal articulation for glottals. Under this analysis glottals arethe 'neutral' consonant, just as /e/ is claimed to be the 'neutral' vowel.6 [+high, +low] is claimed to be physiologically impossible and therefore unattested.325326(6)^Chomsky and Halle Tongue Body Features Revisedc^k^q^c^2^e^j^wantcor _high +^+ +^+back -^+^+^+ +low - +^-The question now arises: Why do Chomsky and Halle (1968) analyse /2,h/ as [+1ow] inthe first place?7 Is there phonological motivation for the proposed features? In order toassess this one has to look at uvulars, pharyngeals, and glottals because it is in this triothat [low] is used to make crucial distinctions.The array in (6) groups uvulars and pharyngeals as [-high, +back], partialconfirmation of which can be found in the the co-articulatory effects of uvulars (e.g.Greenlandic, Salish, Semitic) and pharyngeals (Semitic, Interior Salish) where [+high]vowels are lowered adjacent to such segments. However, the inclusion of glottals in theclass of post-velar consonants requires appeal to a third feature. For example, Brame(1972) uses [+low] to account for guttural lowering in Maltese Arabic, where the vowelof the person prefixes alternates depending on the consonant of the imperfective stem towhich it is attached. The occurrence of [a] is conditioned by a following /2, h/, as in (7a).In non-guttural contexts, the vowel is [i], as in (7b).(7)^Maltese Guttural Lowering (Brame 1972)a)^na-2sam^'I divide'ta-2sam^'you divide'na-hrab^'I flee'ta- hrab^'you flee'7Lass (1976), for example, wonders if it is an outright error in the text.327b)^ni-kteb^'Iwrite'ti-kteb^'you write'These alternations are accounted for by a rule of Guttural Lowering.8(8)i^--> a I— 2,h^E +high] [back^+consonantal^+low +back+lowHowever, the use of [+low] to capture the classhood of pharyngeals and glottals doestransfer transparently to the more general rule of Guttural Lowering in other dialects ofArabic, where both uvulars and /h/ pattern with pharyngeals and glottal stop to conditionthe appearance of /a/-vowels in guttural roots. For example, in Palestinian Arabic thePresent Progressive stem vowel can only be /a/ in stems with guttural /x, R, h, 1, 2, h/.(9) Guttural Lowering in Imperfectives (Palestinian data from Herzallah 1990)Present Progressive Stem /i/^Imperfective /a/yi-ktib^ katab^'write'yi-mlis malas^'level'/a/ in guttural stems^Imperfective /a/yi-nsax^ nasax^'copy'yi-mraR maraR^'loiters'yi-s?al sa?al^'asks'yi-sfah^ safah^'rude'yi-blaT bale^'swallow'yi-shal sahal^'slid'8(8) assumes that Nis distinguished from /2/ by [4-continuant] or else both segments cannot be back, lowand consonantal.Reference to Now] as the phonologically relevant feature in Guttural Loweringfor the Palestinian data will not include uvulars, so Brame's rule will not work for thesedata. Guttural Lowering could be reformulated to reference the feature [-high], thuscorrectly grouping uvulars with pharyngeals and glottals, but this would output a [-high]rather than [+low] vowel.9The dominant patterning of laryngeals is reflected in the standard current analysisof glottals without specifications for Place within an articulator model of featuregeometry. The analysis of glottals as Placeless is supported by considerable phonologicalevidence. The data presented from Interior Salish demonstrate this Placelessness in aninteresting way. Given a group of languages with abundant evidence for a fourth nodecharacterising pharyngeal, uvular and some coronal segments, laryngeals must bePlaceless in order to escape the prediction that they are either triggers or blockers of thevarious harmony processes involving the fourth node (see also Besse11 and Czaykowska-Higgins 1991). The evidence for laryngeal Placelessness is not limited to Interior Salish,although the Salish case has special interest since it also provides evidence for a fourthnode.Further evidence for laryngeal Placelessness can be found in harmony processeswhich treat /h, 2/ as transparent. Trans-Laryngeal Harmony (Steriade 1987) is a widelyreported phenomenon whereby one vowel assimilates totally to a heterosyllabic vowelfrom which it is separated by ry or /h/. To illustrate, (10a, b) shows total vowelassimilation across morpheme boundaries in Chemehuevi. (10c) illustrates laryngealtransparency to the process.9 McCarthy (1991) reworks these data in light of feature geometry and the Pharyngeal node.328(10) Trans-laryngeal Harmony: Vi --> Vj / (h,2) VjChemehuevi (Press 1979, cited in Steriade 1987)a. tika-vtutu-uka^[tika-vmui -ttikal^'eat-Past-it'b. kani-upaa^[kani-ipa]^'in the house'c. nukwi-jtu 2umi^[nukwi-juntu mi]^'run-Pres-P1'Steriade (1987) isolates four aspects of Trans-Laryngeal Harmony which must beexplained: (i) all features of the trigger vowel are copied, (ii) feature specifications undermore than one articulator node may be affected, hence arguing for spreading of the Placenode, (iii) the Laryngeal Node features of the vowels involved are not affected, and (iv)TV and /h/ are treated alike by the rule if a language has both of them. To account for thisarray of properties, Steriade analyses 12, h/ as lacking a Supralaryngeal Node. As aconsequence they are transparent to spreading of any feature below the SupralaryngealNode, such as Place and dependent articulator nodes. Steriade's arguments translatereadily into the absence of a Place Node in current feature geometries which do notmaintain a Supralaryngeal Node (McCarthy 1988). This analysis is less radical than theone presented here, which argues that the Laryngeal Node is not always relevant fort?, h/,just as it is not for plain voiceless obstruents in general. However, laryngeal transparencyis nonetheless assured given the shared analysis of laryngeals as Placeless segments. Therule can be stated as (10d), assuming a model of feature geometry that does not use aSupralaryngeal node (McCarthy 1988). Under the analysis of laryngeals pursued here,Laryngeal node features may not be present on 12, h/, and so the Laryngeal node (LN) isparenthesized.(10d) Trans-Laryngeal Harmony fomalizedVi^2/h^VjRoot^Root^Rit....---I^(LN)Place Place329The analysis of glottals as Placeless is also pursued by Mester (1986) and Yip(1989) to explain the neutrality of t?! to Morpheme Structure Constraints in Javanese. inJavanese, consonants from classes sharing the same articulator node are significantlyabsent in Ci and C2 position of C1VC2VC roots.10 Yip (1989:354) interpets thepatterning of dentals with retroflexes and palatals in these root prohibitions to indicatethat a node Coronal is held in common, and that the constraint on Javanese roots requiresdistinct Place nodes. The neutrality of 11, h/ is explained (and indeed, predicted) by theirPlacelessness. Dental /0/, if analyzed as unspecified for Place, is likewise neutral.(11) Javanese Morpheme Structure Constraints:C1VC2VC roots: C1 and C2 cannot be homorganicLabials^p, b, m, wDentalsRetroflexes^t,^1)Palatals c,^sVelars k, g, 0Dentals and retroflexes^,t, t,Dentals and palatals 0, c, j, ji, sNeutral segments^2, h,Retroflexes and palatals may co-occurThe phonological Placelessness of glottals appears to be exploited in codarestrictions also. For example, Menomini codas may be composed of any singleconsonant in its inventory (see (1), section 7.0). However, the sequences -?tf, -?f aretolerated in coda position (Bloomfield 1963, Yip 1991). Here it can be seen that thepresence of ril does not violate the general constraint that codas consist of a singlespecification for Place. Furthermore, Ci of medial CC clusters is restricted to itf, f, h, 2/.10Roots where Cl = C2 are acceptable and are assumed to be doubly linked (Mester 1986, Yip 1989).330Yip (1991) shows that Menomini obeys the Cluster Condition (adjacent consonants arelimited at most to one Place specification) if AS, f, h, 2/ are analysed without Placespecifications. Clements (1985), based on Elson (1947, 1956) and Foster and Foster(1948), provides a similar example from Sierra Popoluca. Consonant clusters in SierraPopoluca are mostly restricted to syllable final position, where -ps, -ks, -2C are the onlypermissable CC clusters. CCC clusters are restricted to -2ps and -2ks. Yip (1991) alsomakes the general proposal that geminates, coronals and homorganic clusters all lackPlace features in the relevant sense, thus allowing them unusual freedom of co-occurrence with respect to constraints on the content of clusters and codas.11 Based onthe evidence presented, glottals should be added to this list.Phonetic indication of Placeless /h/ is the frequent phonetic description of it as avoiceless, possibly aspirated counterpart of adjacent articulations. Maddieson (1984:37)states: "It remains likely that a relatively uniform phonetic characterization of /h/ ispossible, but that it is best made in terms of similarities to the properties of abuttingsegments". This is confirmed in phonological processes of h-assimilation such asreported in Terango Otomi, (Blight and Pike 1976), Chamorro (Chung 1983), Toba Batak(Hayes 1986) and Sedang (Smith 1968). Assimilation of /2/ to the Place of adjacentconsonants is reported for Seyalarese by Mithun and Basri (1986).With respect to the debate on the feature [low] for glottals, it is interesting to notethat those languages which are argued to have phonological glottal-lowering (Semitic,Nisgha), both contain evidence that their glottals are like non-lowering glottals in thatthey do not involve a gesture which alters the dimensions of the supralaryngeal vocaltract. As noted in sections 4.3.1.4 and 4.4.3, Semitic glottals show no evidence offormant transitions, indicating that there is no labial, lingual or pharyngeal articulatorygesture specific to them. This is also noted by McCarthy (1991). Nisgha glottal stopshows the standard echo vowel effects which are also found with Placeless Interior Salish11That is to say, coronals are unspecified for Place whereas homorganic clusters and geminates share asingle Place specification.331glottals. Furthermore, epenthetic word-initial [h] in Nisgha does not trigger the vowel-lowering effects found with glottals in other positions (Tarpent 1983, 1987; Walsh 1990,Shaw 1991b)). These facts illuminate the central claim of analyses of phonologicallowering from glottals. It is not that glottals spread a feature related to vocal tractconstriction per se. Instead the analysis argues that glottals reflect the phonologicalconsequences of sharing a passive articulatory site (Pharyngeal, in McCarthy's terms)with uvulars and pharyngeals. In fact, McCarthy's representations for Semitic gutturalsdistinguish /2, h/ as articulator-less, whereas pharyngeals have a [radical] articulator,uvulars a [dorsal] one, emphatics have [coronal] and [dorsal] articulators (6.1.2). Thus,Semitic gutturals and Nisgha uvulars and glottals are claimed to pattern on a sitespecification rather than an articulator specification.12 The intriguing consequence of thePharyngeal representation proposed for Semitic and Nisgha glottals is that its spreadtranslates into lowering of vowel quality on a par with our understanding of thetraditional dorsal articulator feature [+low].I now examine the generative claim that glottals are glides.7.1.2 Glottals as [-consonantal, +sonorant] glidesThe claim that /?,h/ are [-consonantal, +sonorant] explicitly denies them identitywith obstruents. Obstruents are [+consonantal, -sonorant]. One way to explore whereglottals fall with respect to the consonantal and sonorant divide is to consider what itmeans to bear these features.Chomsky and Halle (1968) define [+consonantal] as requiring a certain degree ofmid-saggital constriction: "Consonantal sounds are produced with a radical obstruction inthe mid-saggital region of the vocal tract, nonconsonantal sounds are produced withoutsuch an obstruction." (p.302). [consonantal] is thus a stricture feature and the glides /w, j/simply lack sufficient constriction to qualify as [+consonantal]. Applying this definition121n this respect the Semitic/Nisgha data do not challenge the traditional analysis of glottals as articulator-less as reflected in articulator-based feature geometry by the absence of specifications under the Place node.332to /2, h/, either the [+1ow] tongue body feature used for glottals also produces insufficientconstriction for them to be consonantal or else, if glottals are [-low], then the fact thatadduction of the vocal folds is not on the mid-saggital plane, or is not supra-laryngeal,excludes them from the class of consonants by definition. This latter interpretation ismade explicit in Shane (1973), who states that laryngeal glides are classified [-consonantal] because they have no constriction within the oral cavity. He notes furtherthat of the four qualities distinguishing vowel articulation from consonantalarticulation,13 laryngeal glides fall on the vowel side of the 'degree of constriction'parameter. In other words, vowels have less constriction in the oral cavity than semi-vowels which in turn have less than consonants, and laryngeal glides have least of allbecause their articulation requires no constriction in the oral cavity at all. By thisreasoning glottals are the least consonantal, most vowel-like articulations possible. Infact, /?, h/ are more vowel-like than vowels. I suggest that this is not a coherentapplication of the definition [consonantal] as proposed by these authors. For example,one can argue that the voiceless bilabial /p/ has as little constriction in the vocal tract/oralcavity as does /?/. /p/ has constriction at the extreme anterior or lip end of the vocal tract,/2/ has constriction at the extreme posterior or glottis end, but no one would want to claimthat /p/ is [-consonantal] because its constriction is at the lips rather than within the oralcavity. On the other hand, as we have seen, the claim is regularly made than /?/ is [-consonantal] because its constriction is at the other boundary of the vocal tract, thelarynx. As Lass (1976) notes, in the case of both /2/ and /p/ the passage of pulmonicegressive arirstream through the vocal tract is obstructed. Under this view glottals areobstruents on a par with 'regular' stops and fricatives.As the preceding discussion reveals, arguments for the exception of laryngealsfrom [consonantal] status must exclude the larynx from the domain of the vocal tract. 1413 These are sonority, syllabicity, degree of constriction and place of articulation.14No one argues that laryngeals do not involve constriction of some sort, just that laryngeal constrictiondoes not count for the purposes of calculating consonantality and sonorancy.333Stevens and Keyser (1989) also imply that the larynx is not part of the vocal tract, but thedifficulties of this position are revealed in their definitions of [consonantal] and[continuant]. Their feature [consonantal] implies 'narrow constriction at some pointalong the length of the vocal tract'. Glottals are considered [-consonantal] on the groundsthat they lack constriction in the vocal tract. Accordingly, the glottis cannot be part of thevocal tract. On the other hand, the definition of [continuant] requires the false vocal foldsjust above the glottis to function as part of the vocal tract. Stevens and Keyser definenon-continuants by 'complete closure at some point along the midline of the vocal tract'./2/ is considered [-continuant], with a footnote that glottals involve constriction of thefalse vocal folds, thus enabling them to bear [-continuant] and [-sonorant]. Sonorants aredefined as having no obstruction of airflow in airways above the larynx. Somehowglottals can have a supraglottal articulation for [continuant] and [sonorant] but not for[consonantal].Consider now the definition of [sonorant] offered by Chomsky and Halle(1968:302). Sonorants are "sounds produced with a vocal tract cavity configuration inwhich spontaneous voicing is possible; obstruents are produced with a cavityconfiguration that makes spontaneous voicing impossible". The crucial aspect of thisdefinition is the phrase "vocal tract cavity configuration in which spontaneous voicing ispossible". Under this definition h/ are considered like vowels in having a vocal tractconfiguration that does not require adjustment of the vocal folds in order to achievevoicing. That is, because they lack any obstruction/constriction in the vocal tract, glottalsand vowels are considered to have a configuration amenable to spontaneous voicing,hence are [-Esonorantl. Of course, this is a very puzzling interpretation when thearticulatory gestures for 1.2, hi are considered. The vocal folds are firmly adducted for /?/and spread in a voiceless or aspirated configuration for /h/.334So consider O'Connor's (1973:26) description oft?!:The air stream is completely blocked by the closed vocalcords, pressure builds up beneath them from the lungs, andis then released explosively when the vocal cords suddenly part.It seems obvious that precisely /2/ and /h/ require vocal fold adjustments to achievevoicing. Such problems with defining spontaneous voicing vis-a-vis sonorancy have notgone unnoticed. Ladefoged (1971) suggests that a more robust distinction betweensonorants and obstruents can be made by reference to the output of periodic acousticenergy, with sonorants having a large output of acoustic energy, and obstruents a smalloutput of periodic acoustic energy. In a similar vein Stevens and Keyser (1989) arguethat [-sonorant] is acoustically manifested by reduced spectrum amplitude at lowfrequencies.That glottals conform to the criteria for [-sonorant] as defined by Ladefoged(1973) and Stevens and Keyser (1989) is confirmed by acoustic analysis of data such asgiven in (12).(12). Me?kepmxcin: /?/ like /p,t,k,q/Rfaphj^'ripped'th, kh^rs?isthkill^'winter'qh re?aqh] 'tame'2h^r§kixzE2h]^'mother'Spectrographic analysis of these forms shows /2/ patterning with /p, t, k, q/ onthree dimensions: first, they all clearly obstruct the pulmonic egressive airstream in amanner consistent with stop articulation; second, they all have a small output of acousticenergy—they are non-sonorant; third, /p, t, k, q, ?/ in syllable final position have aspiratedrelease. In short, /p, t, k, q, 2/ are (aspirated) voiceless stops.335Figure 7.59 is a spectrogram of the Nie?kepmxcin form rskixze211] 'mother' from(12) above. The aspirated release of final /?/ can be seen clearly. This spectrogram canbe compared with those showing [ph, th, kh, qh] for the same speaker, presented at thebeginning of Appendix B. For a qualitative description of aspiration in 1■14e2kepmxcin seeThompson and Thompson (1992). Aspiration on the class of voiceless stops to theinclusion of l'il have also been transcribed by M.D. Kinkade for Gitksan (Tsimshianic),the Coast Salish language Halkomelem, and in his own records of NieThepmxcin.0 0^0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5^0.6^0.7^0.8^0.9^1.0^1.1^1.2^1.3d.,171.dFigure 7.59: Nielkepmxcin [skixzc?h], 'mother': DS.336It might be noted that it is not always clear from the transcription of aspirationwhether /2/ patterns with voiceless stops for a rule of aspirated release in certain positions.Elson's (1947) description of Sierra Popoluca is a case in point since he notes aspirationof /p, t, k, q/ but does not remark on /7/. However, so-called parasitic or echo voweleffects are found in many descriptions of indigenous languages of the Americas(Tsimshian: Boas 1911; Coeur d'Alene: Reichard 1938; Havasupai: Kuzlowski 1976;Teton Lakota: Boas and Deloria 1932; Siona: Wheeler and Wheeler 1962). The effect isusually confined to glottal stop, but may occur with /h/. In either case it takes the form ofa brief 'echo' of a preceding vowel following the release of the glottal constriction. Thephenomenon is clearly related to the gap in reports of aspirated allophones of /2/ and hasan obvious phonetic explanation which relies on the fact that /2/, like other stops, mayhave an audible release. In -V2- sequences glottal stop is often articulated with the supra-laryngeal tract in the vowel configuration. This configuration may persist during andupon release of the glottal closure, giving the echo vowel effect. A spectrogam of theNisgha form [mts323], 'sockeye salmon' is also provided in Appendix B.(13) Echo Vowels: V2--> V2VNisgha : Walsh 1986 (Fieldnotes)jE2c^'spring salmon'mis523 'sockeye salmon'Spokane: Carlson 1966 (Fieldnotes)t'gne2E^'ear'hikwri21 'yellow'nk'wu211^'one'The discussion here suggests that [2V] is functionally [211. However, this is notthe case in Dakota, where syllable-final [2V] parallels the voicing of other stops in the337same position. Here the echo vowel effectively voices [2]. This substantiates the analysisof t?! as a stop and fills a gap in the paradigm /2, 2", h, fl/.15At this point, one might wonder what evidence motivates the generative analysisof glottals as glides. The phonological evidence cited within the early generativetradition for /2,h/ as [+sonorant, -consonantal] glides refers to (i) the transparency of /2, h,w, j/ to nasal harmony processes and (ii) the fact that /?, h, w, j/ often serve as hiatusbreakers in VV sequences. Kenstowicz and Kisseberth (1979) refer to Onn's (1976)thesis on Malay, a language in which nasality spreads until blocked by anything[+consonantal], with 1w, j, ?, h/ transparent to spreading and therefore analysed as [-consonantal]. /w, j, 2/ are also claimed to be hiatus breakers in Malay. Since it has beencited in defense of the Chomsky and Halle (1968) classification of laryngeals as glides,the Malay evidence bears some examination. In the following discussion I draw heavilyon Durand's (1986) presentation and reanalysis of the Malay data.7.2. MalayDurand (1986) notes several pertinent facts of Malay phonology relevant to thefollowing discussion. Malay syllable structure is CV(C) and the language has a StrictOnset Rule which triggers ?-epenthesis in order to provide an onset to those syllableslacking one. As a result, [2] is epenthetic between identical vowels ([i?i, tau, a?a, e?e, o?o,a?a]), and between some sequences of non-identical vowels across morpheme boundaries(to be clarified below). [2] is also epenthetic word-initially on vowel-initial words,regardless of vowel quality. Durand observes that the occurrence of [2] is entirelypredictable from epenthesis and reduction processes, and concludes that it is notunderlying in Malay.1615This important and interesting phonological use of [WV] wasbrought to my attention by Patricia Shaw.160nn (1976, 1980) gives the phoneme inventory of Standard Malay as: /p, b, t, d, k, g, ? ,tf, d3, s, h, 1, r,m, n, 0, j, w, i, e, a, o, u, a/.3387.2.1 Hiatus[2] is not the only segment that predictably occupies onset position as a result ofthe Strict Onset Condition. [j] occurs beween two non-identical vowels the first of whichis [i]. [w] occurs between two non-identical vowels the first of which is [u]. As with 2-epenthesis, these insertions apply morpheme-internally and across morpheme boundaries.(14) ti ap 'every' bu ah 'fruit'On the assumption that [2, w, j] epenthesis is the result of a Strict Onset Rule in Malay,the appearance of [j, w] after [i, u] respectively can be regarded as the rightward spread ofthe Root Node from the preceding vowel onto an onset position required by the syllablealgorithm. The nucleus of al will then share Place specifications with the onset of G2.339(15) al/\ONI Ib uRoot^[son]PlaceLabial--> [buwah]Dorsal[high]Given that (15) formalizes rightward spreading of the Root node and itsdependent Place specifications to onset positions, we predict that word-initial onsetscannot derive a Place specification. This prediction is met: only [2] is possible as a word-initial epenthetic onset regardless of the quality of the following vowel. Its appearancehere cannot possibly be conditioned by the spreading rule of (15) since spreading is onlyrightward and word-initially there is nothing to spread from. Given no derived Placespecification, the interpretation of the required onset is Placeless [2].Furthermore, only [2] appears as onset following all other vowels, /e, a, o, a/. Ifwe assume that Place features are provided by spreading from all vowels onto onsetposition as in (15) above, it must be the case that /a, e, o, a/ spread features which cannotbe translated into acceptable onsets, presumably because /a, e, o, a/ have noglide/consonantal alternant in the Malay inventory.17 Therefore a default onset whichdoes not violate Structure Preservation occurs—a Placeless, voiceless, consonantal glottalstop. The Structure Preservation argument is relevant because it casts some light on thefrequent occurrence of [2] (and [h]) as epenthetic, especially in inventories where neitherthey nor the Laryngeal Node features [+constricted glottis] or [+spread glottis] arephonemically constrastive, which is the case with Malay [I]. Consider the featurespecifications of epenthetic [2]. The feature [+consonantal] can be seen as supplied bythe presence of consonants in an inventory (all inventories have them). The value {-continuant] is also supplied, since all inventories have stops. Given that the default forvoicing on stops is no voicing, this requires no extra machinery, since under Lombardi's(1991) analysis plain voicless segments simply lack a Laryngeal Node. Furthermore,there is no Place specification required for epenthetic segments unless the language has adefault Place specification, let us say Coronal, in which case a Place-ed epenthetic [t]appears. However, given [+consonantal], no voicing and no default Place, [2] (or [h])turns up. Under this analysis then, being a glide in the sense of [-consonantal, +sonorant]has nothing to do with the hiatus behaviour of glottal stop in Malay. Instead, beingessentially a bare consonant has everything to do with its common appearance as anepenthetic onset.17 Note: if /e/ or /a/ are [-high,-back,-low] then one might expect /2/ to be their consonantal alternant.However, it remains under this argument that there is no alternant for /a/ or /o/. Under SPE assumptions,even if /2/ is [low], it is not [low,back] as is /a/. As for /o/, there is no [round, -high, -low, -syllabic]alternant for it either.340Given this analysis, the appearance of glottal stop between identical vowelsequences requires explanation. If nuclear /i/ and /u/ can spread their place features ontofollowing onsets, how is it that [-i?i-] , [-u?u-] rather than *[-iji-] and *[-uwu-] sequencesare attested. Why can Ii/ and /u/ not spread features in the case of fii/ and /uu/ sequences?Durand (1986) suggests that sonority violations are relevant. That is, [-ji-] or [-wu-]onset-nucleus sequences are not sufficiently differentiated in terms of sonority: /i,u/ beingsonorous vowels and /j,w/ homorganic highly sonorous non-syllabics.18 This constraintwould either prevent spreading of features from /i, u/, or else trigger a repair strategy todelink the necessary features. In either case, the default (or what is left after de-linking)is a less sonorous and now Placeless epenthetic onset: M. These facts provide furthersupport for the analysis that /2/ is the result of no spreading (or spreading and delinking)from /e, a, o, a/. With no Place specifications to realize, /?/ surfaces. Some credibility islent Durand's sonority violation explanation since /-u i-/ and /-i u-/ sequences also surfacewith [2] as the epenthetic onset, as is predicted by his analysis.197.2.2 TransparencyThe second generative argument for glottals as glides refers to their transparencyto nasal prosody processes. Nasal vowels in Malay are derivable by a rule of rightwardNasal Spread which applies iteratively, crosses morpheme boundaries and /w, j, h/. [2] isalso transparent, and as such is usually included in discussions of laryngeal glidetransparency. However, I ignore it here, given that its status as epenthetic might beargued to underlie its transparency to nasal spreading. Since /h/ is not epenthetic,however, its transparency must be explained.18For this analysis to go through, Durand must assume that /e/ and /o/ as well as /a/ are less sonorous thanIV and /u/.19Presumably the sonority constraint exhibited in Malay is language-specific since [-wu-] and [-ji-] arepermitted onset-nucleus combinations in other languages. I thank K. Rice for pointing this out to me, aswell as the fact that the sonority constraint predicts epenthetic [7] in the case of [-iu-] and [-ui-I sequences.341(16) Nasalization: rightward spread from nasalsminOrn^'to drink'makan 'to eat'bagan^'to rise''Glide' transparencymdwah^'to be luxurious'maj á n 'palm stalk'pa otandhan^'central focus'Onn (1976, 1980) states that any consonantal segment blocks the rightward spread ofnasality. This can be seen in the forms mftkan 'to eat' and paotandhán 'central focus'. Toaccount for this, Onn proposes a rule of Vowel Nasalization refering to the feature [-consonantal] to identify the class of transparent segments. Onn's rule (taken here fromDurand 1986) is:(17) V^--> V / N^(G/V)[+syllabic]^[+nasal] [+nasal] [-consonantal]oThe crucial aspect of this analysis is the status of /h/ as [-consonantal]. The feature[+sonorant] cannot be used to identify the class of transparent segments since /1, r/ arethen falsely predicted to be transparent. However, a serious problem for this position isevidence that 111/ otherwise patterns with [+consonantal, -sonorant] segments in Malay.Evidence for /h/ as [+consonantal, -sonorant] comes from three processes inMalay. First, there is a rule deleting voiceless obstruents after a prefix-final nasal whichhas assimilated in place to the deleting obstruent. (18) demonstrates prefix-final nasalassimilation before voiced obstruents, since the conditioning environment is not lost inthese cases.342(18) Prefix-final nasal assimilationmao+baya [ma m baya]mao+daki^[ma ndaki]ma o+d3awap [maild3awap]'to pay (active)''to climb (active)''to answer (active)'343Before voiceless stops and the fricative Is/, the same alternation occurs, but the voicelessobstruent deletes.(19) Prefix-final nasal assimilation and voiceless obstruent deletionmao+pukulma o+tulismao+salin[mamukul] uk[ma nulls][majialin]'to beat (active)''to write (active)''to copy (active)'These same prefix-final nasals delete in the context of following sonorants instead ofassimilating to them.(20) Nasal Prefix Deletion before sonorantsma 0-Flawat^[malawat]^'to visit (active)'ma 0+wakili [ma wakili] 'to represent (active)'mag+jakini [majakini]^'to be convinced (active)'pa o+rompak [parompa2] 'robber'While Onn apparently does not report on the behaviour of /h/ in the context of therule of Voiceless Obstruent Deletion, Durand (1987) finds evidence from Hassan (1974)that specifically includes /h/ (and [2]) in the class of segments undergoing this rule.20 Thefull set of targets identified by Hassan (1974) is /p, t, k, s, f, h/ and [2].21 Both glottals arethus patterning with the entire class of [+consonantal, -sonorant] segments in Malay. Asdiscussed, while /?/ is epenthetic in Malay, is underlying, occurring syllable-intially20Durand (1986) does not cite examples from Hassan (1974) of glottal participation in the rule of VoicelessObstruent Deletion.210nn does not include /f/ in the phoneme inventory of Malay. As far as I can discern it occurs only inloan words.and finally. Therefore the classification of /h/ as [+consonantal, -sonorant] cannot beundermined by saying that /hi has special status as epenthetic. Furthermore, the analysisof /h/ as an obstruent is substantiated by the fact that its deletion after the prefix-finalnasal can be optional. In foreign or formal words /hi tends not to undergo VoicelessObstruent Deletion. The form [meoharamIcan] 'to forbid' is of Arabic origin and retainsthe /h/. The retained /h/ does not pattern with the sonorants /1, r, w, j/ to trigger NasalPrefix Deletion as illustrated in (20).A third process grouping Malay glottals with voiceless obstruents appears in avery pervasive rule of reduction which, depending on the dialect, debuccalizes all syllablefinal stops to P/, and Is/ to /h/. Standard Malay, according to Onn, obligatorily reducessyllable final /k/ to [2], and optionally reduces /s/ to [h]. But in other dialects Durandnotes, all final stops (/p, t, k/) are reduced to /7/ and /s/ is obligatorily /h/. Theseprocesses can be unified under one rule of Place delinking, leaving behind in the caseof stops and 111/ in the case of /s/ precisely if we assume that the root nodes [-sonorant,+consonantal] specify glottals, whether epenthetic or not. Durand (1986) considers this'dearticulation', or delinking of the articulatory component of a segment. This insighttranslates readily into the model of McCarthy (1988) as Place delinking, commonlytermed debuccalization.(21) Malay debuccalization[+consonantal-sonorant344Place[+/- continuant]The Laryngeal Node features [constricted glottis] and [spread glottis] are not motivatedfor the Malay inventory. The consequence of stop and fricative debuccalization falls outquite naturally from the assumption that glottals are Placeless obstruents bearingcontinuancy values. This is entirely consistent with the analysis of epenthetic 121 as aPlaceless onset. Debuccalization processes are discussed in further detail in section 7.3.If the analysis of glottals as placeless and [+consonantal, -sonorant] is correct, thetransparency of laryngeals to nasal spread demands an alternate explanation than that ofglides. We can no longer refer to glottals as [-consonantal] or as [+sonorant]. Again,while we may excuse Malay [2] on the grounds that it is epenthetic, we cannot make thisargument for /h/, so the need for explanation stands. As it happens, laryngealtransparency to nasal spreading is a very wide-spread phenomenon. Piggott (1988,1992),in his discussion of nasal prosodies, states that /?,h/ are always transparent to nasalspread; /w, j/ are sometimes, but not always transparent. This, of course, is independentevidence for the need to make a distinction between laryngeals and /w,j/ which does notrely on their joint status as glides. As glides, one must nonetheless propose that thelowness or placelessness of /?, h/ renders them transparent to nasality, whereas thehighness of /i,u/ does not guarantee their transparency. In other words, the analysis ofglottals as [+sonorant, -consonantal] is not of service in these cases and one has to refer toPlace specifications (or lack thereof). This further weakens the analysis of /w, j, ?, h/ as aclass.According to Piggott's (1992) survey and analysis, languages fall into two typeswith respect to nasal processes. Type A languages spread a node Soft Palate dominatingthe feature [+nasal] from consonants, which are the only segments which can beunderlyingly specified for nasality in such languages. Supralaryngeal non-continuantobstruents (except /?/) block this spread and are analysed with a Soft Palate node to blockspreading. Type B languages spread the feature [nasal], which here is dependent on adistinct node termed Spontaneous Voicing. Only sonorants (including /j, w/) arespecified for the Spontaneous Voicing node and all obstruents are transparent, including12, h/. Under this view, the behaviour of glottals in nasal harmonies suggests (i) that theyare [-sonorant] and (ii) they are not [+consonantal]. As noted by Piggott (1992) it is345important to know the status of 11, h/ in languages with nasal prosodies, since he suggeststhat epenthetic segments (a timing slot with no underlying phonetic content under hisanalysis) will be transparent to the spread of both A and B sources of nasality.Regardless of this, the transparency of /h/ in Malay (a Type A language) requiresexplanation. Under Piggott's analysis, /h/ is [-consonantal], lacks a Soft Palate node andhence is transparent to Soft Palate spreading. But what if Malay /h/ is [+consonantal], asDurand's analysis proposes? As such it should have a Soft Palate Node and block thespread of nasality. Since /h/ does not block nasality, another explanation is required.Recall (section 3.3.2) that in terms of typology, glottals tend not to take what aretraditionally termed secondary articulations. It is argued (section 7.6) that thisdistributional constraint is related to the Placelessness of glottals. Pursuing this reasoningwith respect to nasality, I note (as does Piggott 1992) that the velum, which lowers toallow airflow through the nasal passages, is anterior to the pharynx and glottis as placesof articulation, but posterior to the labial, coronal and velar places of articualtion. Thisvery fact has been used to explain the distribution of nasal consonants with respect toplace of articulation (Maddieson 1984). Labial and coronal are preferred sites becausepulmonic airflow is not obstructed prior to the velar region. Velar is less preferred, anduvular nasals are very unusual (Maddieson 1984 contains no examples of uvularnasals).22 Nasality is not distinctive on pharyngeal articulation of any sort. How mightthese facts interact with the phonological transparency of laryngeals to nasal spreading inlanguages in which non-continuant obstruents are opaque?23 The bulk of data analysedin this chapter support an anlaysis of glottals as placeless obstruents. I suggest thereforethat it is the formal placelessness of glottals which underlies their unique and consistent22The ranking of nasals by place is: n > m > > ji, but the occurrence of the palatal nasal it is morefrequent than the occurrence of palatal stops would suggest. Velar nasals are less frequent than than theoccurrence of velar stops would suggest. This indicates that palatal site is actually preferred over the velarone for nasals. Maddieson (1984:60) notes that 'pharyngeal and glottal places of articulation are ruled outfor nasals because of articulatory constraints'.23Piggott (1992) suggests a universal (phonetic) co-occurrence restriction prohibiting [+constricted glottis,+nasal]. This cannot be absolutely true, since a number of Salish languages have /m', n7, realized withcreaky voice. ICashaya (Buckley 1992) is also analysed with /m', fly.346transparency to nasal harmony processes. The assignment of distinctive nasality in TypeA languages, I suggest, references both consonantality and Place.In summary, this section has shown that the evidence relied upon in the generativetraditions for Ali/ as [low] glides is not compelling. The obvious question is: how areglottals properly classified? The distribution of glottals in inventories as discussed insection 3.3, while vulnerable to the charge that the researcher has not quite got it righteither in transcription or analysis,24 provides strong intuitive clues which confirmphonetic evidence of the sort demonstrated by Nie2kepmxcin and the analysis presentedabove for glottals as placeless obstruents. There is considerable further phonologicalevidence confirming this analysis. Some of the most compelling evidence comes fromdebuccalization.7.3 DebuccalizationSo-called 'debuccalization' (Clements 1985) processes result in [2] or [h]. Whilethe debuccalization of stops can result in either [2] or [h], the debuccalization offricatives, as far as I am able to discern, invariably results in [h]. The cases of stop > [h]are the consequence of the spread of the Laryngeal Node feature [+aspirated] onto theroot node left behind from debuccalization, or in some cases, de-obstruentizationfollowed by debuccalization.This section presents evidence that debuccalization processes, in so far as they areanalyzable as Place delinking, are powerful evidence for the placelessness of glottals andfor their status as the minimal stop and fricative respectively. I note also the parallelbetween consonantal debuccalization as analysed here and vowel reduction analysed asloss of Place features to produce some version of [a]. Schwa is the minimal vowel in thesame way that [2] is the minimal stop and [h] the minimal fricative. The analysis ofreduction/debuccalization proposed here derives these three 'reduced' segments by the24While this is always something to bear in mind, it is unlikely that mis-analysis underlies the notedsymmetry between /2/ and stops, /h/ and fricatives.347same process of Place de-linking without the complicaton of requiring or insertingLaryngeal Node features which are not found on the segment undergoing reduction, or ofchanging the major class features of the segments in question.7.3.1 Stop > [2], Fricative > [h]While debuccalization is often restricted to a single place of articulation within agiven language and hence must be analyzed as delinking of a particular articulator nodeunder Place, it can also operate across place of articulation in a given language, as alreadyseen for the Malay data discussed above. Both diachronically and synchronically, it canbe shown that debuccalization to /2, h/ occurs at every place of articulation from bilabialto pharyngeal. This fact is formalized in the analysis of debuccalization as de-linking ofthe Place Node (McCarthy 1988).(22) Debuccalization of obstruents[+consonantall-sonorant348Place[+/- continuant]The prediction of this rule as stated in (22), in combination with the reducedrepresentation of glottals as bare root nodes with continuancy values, is that [2] will bethe output of the debuccalization of stops, [h] will be the output of fricativedebuccalization. This is indeed the case in the Malay data discussed in section 7.2.2. Itwas noted there that syllable final /k/ in Standard Malay reduces to /2/, while /s/optionally reduces to /h/. Durand (1986) provides the following examples, taken fromOnn (1976,1980).(23) Standard Malay debuccalization: syllable finalmasakan^[masakan]^'the cooking'masak^[masa?]^'to cook'masak+kan [masa?kan] 'to cause to cook for'kipas^[kipah]^'fan'kipas+kan^[kipahkan]^'to cause to fan for'The debuccalization rule in this case must be restricted to the velar /k/, whereas /s/ (as theonly fricative) undergoes the more general rule. A more general case is found in variousdialects of Malay (Kelantan) for example, where all syllable-final stops debuccalize to n/and /s/ obligatorily reduces to /h/. The following data are taken from Trigo (1988),whose data are from Teoh (1988).(24) Kelantan debuccalization: syllable final, all places of articulationStandard Malay Kelantan/p/ letup la tu? 'to explode'/t/ ikat ika? 'to tie'ik/ masa? masa? 'to cook'/s/ lipas lipah 'cockroach'negatif negatih 'negative' (borrowing)The following examples of stop debuccalization across all places of articulation are fromanother Indonesian language, Toba Batak, where the context for debuccalization is afollowing consonant (data from Hayes 1986).(25) Batak debuccalizationganup taon^[ganu2 taon] 'every year'dohot lali i^[doho? lali i] 'and the hen-harrier'halak batak [halal batak] 'Batak person'349While debuccalization and the proposed representations for glottals interact verysimply to produce [2] from stop debuccalization and [h] from fricative debuccalization,consider Hayes' (1986) formalization of Batak debuccalization. Under the assumptionthat [2] must be specified for Laryngeal Node features (part of Hayes' Peripheral Tier) therule must insert the feature [+constricted glottis] in order to ouput [2].(26) Glottal Formation Rule (Hayes 1986)[-cont]^0^Central Tier[-son]C^-->^C^/^ C^C V Tier[+c. gl.] Peripheral TierApplying a rule of this sort to the Kelantan case, where fricatives debuccalize to[h], would force the statement of a separate rule inserting [+spread glottis] just in the caseof debuccalization of [+continuant] obstruents. As a consequence, the rule statement iscomplicated and arbitrary, despite the fact that [h] results only from fricativedebuccalization, not stop debuccalization, and [2] results only from stop debuccalizationand not fricative debuccalization. Under the assumption that glottals do not bearcontinuancy values, there is no principled reason why stops should reduce to [2] andfricatives to [h].Exactly the same issue is illustrated in Kashaya debuccalization (Buckley 1992).Kashaya (Pomo) debuccalizes stops in a number of environments. Of particular interestto the present discussion is a process of word-final debuccalization of plain voicelessstops, that is to say, stops which lack any Laryngeal Node features. The output of plainstop debuccalization is [2].350(27) Kashaya word-final debuccalization25mahsit^mahsi?^'embers'/x./^sulemat^sulema2^'rope'/c/^watac^wa,ca?^'frog'/q/^mihyoq^mihyo?^'woodrat'Root ] w351PlaceThe rule specifically targets [-continuant] since fricatives do not debuccalizeword-finally. Buckley's fomalization of the rule reflects this, but to output [2] anadditional statement must be made ensuring the appearance of a Laryngeal Nodedominating the feature [+constricted glottis]. Again, the presence of [-continuant] in theinput conditions the choice of [2] rather than [h] as a consequence of loss of Place.Buckley (1992) does not assume that Kashaya glottals are glides, so the analysisof debuccalization which he presents does not have to contend with deriving [-consonantal, +sonorant] on the ouput. The full complexity of debuccalization under theanalysis of /2,h/ as glides with Laryngeal Node specifications is illustrated in Halle(1989). Halle argues that debuccalization is delinking of the Place node with thefollowing series of consequences:(i) Delinking the Place node of voiceless obstruents leaves an ill-formed structure since itlacks a major articulator.(ii) A repair mechanism makes the Laryngeal Node a major articulator.(iii) The resulting structure is illicit since a major articulator must be one of the Placearticulators Labial, Coronal, Dorsal, Pharyngeal.25There are no examples of labials or velars undergoing the rule, but dentals, alveolars, palatals and uvularsare targetted, so it would appear to apply regardless of Place, as formalized by Buckley (1992).(iv) This triggers a repair mechanism (Trigo 1988): If a segment has no Place, it is [-consonantal]. This changes [+consonantal] to [-consonantal].(v) All non-consonantal sequences are [+sonorant]. This changes [-sonorant] to[+sonorant].(vi) All non-consonantal segments lack a stricture feature under the root. This erases anyvalue for [continuancy] that the trigger has. The Laryngeal Node is now licit as amajor articulator.(vii) Laryngeal Node features are now interpreted or inserted.(28) Debuccalization (Halle 1989)[+cons]^==>^*[+cons]^==> [-cons][-son] [-son] [+son]/^I^\i+cont]^/^X[+cont]^I^LN^I LN LN/\^I /\ /\[stiff] [spread],^[stiff] [spread]^[stiff] [spread]CoronalPadgett (1991) also argues against the analysis of debuccalization advocated here,considering it not well founded. Padgett (1991) adopts the standard position of Placedelinking, but argues that the resultant placeless segment loses its specifications forcontinuancy by fiat: placeless segments cannot bear continuancy by definition, as perMcCarthy (1988) and Halle (1989). Laryngeal features are then relied upon to providethe interpretation of [2] or [h]. As a consequence the input to all stop > [2]debuccalizations must bear the feature [+constricted glottis] at some point, presumablyprior to debuccalization though not necessarily underlyingly, and the input to stop -> [h]must bear the feature [+spread glottis]. Padgett (1990:301) argues this for syllable-finalstop -> [?] debuccalization in English (Kahn 1977, Selkirk 1982). However, Harris(1990), citing Malay, Batak, Burmese and t-lenition in various English dialects, makesthe same point about this process as I have, namely that not all stop -> [2]debuccalizations are motivated by the presence of [+constricted glottis]. To take the352Kelantan Malay case, there is no evidence for the phonological presence of a feature[+constricted glottis] in the Malay inventory. On the other hand, the appearance ofepenthetic [?] can be viewed as the interpretation of a bare consonantal slot, asdemonstrated by epenthesis facts.Kashaya debuccalization (Buckley 1992) provides a revealing test case forPadgett's analysis of stop -> [2] via [+constricted glottis]. Word-final debuccalization inKashaya (as in 28) is restricted to unaspirated, unglottalized voiceless stops. Buckley(1992) presents evidence that underlyingly glottalized word-final stops do not undergothis rule, nor do a class of words which surface with final aspirated stops.(29) Kashaya: no word-final debuccalization on Ch, C''pop'keph^'unmarked game stick's'ot' 'lungs'ktilweth^'cattle'hec'^'nail, claw'kildkh^'eagle'hosiq'^'screech owl'As a consequence of the failure of aspirates and ejectives to undergo the rule,there can be no Laryngeal Node features present on the targets for word-finaldebuccalization in Kashaya. Buckley (1992101) adds a notation to the rule ensuring this.Given the absence of a Laryngeal Node in the input to word-final debuccalizaiton inKashaya the feature [+constricted glottis] simply has to be inserted if the [-continuant]value of the input is ignored. However, the choice of [+constricted glottis] over [+spreadglottis] is arbitrary in the face of evidence that the input cannot be specified for eitherfeature. Furthermore, the possible interpretation that voicelessness conditions [-Fspreadglottis] in the absence of a specification for [-constricted glottis] obviously makes thewrong prediction here. I have argued that the choice of [2] is not arbitrary if viewed in353light of the fact that the structural description of the rule must include the triggerspecification [-continuant] to avoid including voiceless fricatives in the rule.The analysis here presented predicts the possibility of voiced fricativedebuccalization to [fi]. An example of this is provided by E. Pulleyblank (1992).Apparently the Wu dialects of Chinese have [h] and [Ii] corresponding to [x] and [y] ofEarly Middle Chinese.26 Lass (1976) also notes the derivation of Sanskrit /fi/ from Proto-IndoEuropean */§11/, a voiced palatal aspirate.7.3.2 Stop > [h]While the analysis of debuccalization sketched above is certainly simple, it hasconsequences that challenge several previous analyses of debuccalization in the literature.While all analyses argue that debuccalization is delinking of the Place node (the processis considered major evidence for the constituency for the Place node in McCarthy 1988) astandard assumption has been that delinldng of Place necessitates the loss of all mannerfeatures. Thus, McCarthy (1988:7-8):The loss of manner distinctions in debuccalization follows from independentlynecessary properties of articulation, the definitions of manner features, and thecharacterization of distinctively nasalized segments. The laryngeally articulatedconsonants h and 2 that are derived by debuccalization cannot bear distinctions inthe manner features in any case, regardless of the feature geometry we impose onthem. For purely articulatory (or definitional) reasons, h and 2 cannot carrydistinctions for the feature [continuant] (or any other manner feature).It is necessary then to look at the paradigm cases used in support of this argument,which have to do with stop > [h] debuccalizations. Stop > [h] debuccalizations arelikewise attested from all places of articulation. The examples in (30), taken from Lass26Pulleyblank (1992:13) also reports debuccalization in the Taishan dialect of Chinese 'which has [2] and[h] corresponding to [t] and [th] in other Yue dialects'.354(1984), illustrate historical stop > [h] debuccalization from bilabial, palatal and velarplaces of articulation. Examples in (31) are of historical fricative reduction to [h].27(30) Historical stop debuccalization to [h]Skr padam 'id' Armenian het 'footprint'P. Drav.*/cir2/ PengoKann.Tamilhir2sir2uir2'nit'P.Uralic */k/^Finn kuole- 'die' Hung.Yurakhal-haa-(31) Historical fricative debuccalization to [h]Igbo labials^Onica If/ Mbaise, Ohuhu /h/PIE *is/ L^septum^Greek hepta 'seven'Skr sama 'year'^B. Celtic haf, han 'summer'OHG sumarYuman velars^x, x''-->h, hwData of this sort appear to support the argument that the output of debuccalizationhas nothing to do with the continuancy value of the input. However, while stopdebuccalization from all places of articulation to [h] is a well-attested historicalphenomenon, in all the historical cases that I know of, there is evidence for an interveningfricative stage. Such debuccalization appears to be the penultimate stage of a lenitionprocess. This is of interest with respect to Harris (1990), which presents an analysis oflenition as reduction in segment structure complexity. A very common stage in lenitionis the loss of [-continuant], often via aspiration or affrication of the stop, then frication.Debuccalization frequently applies after the weakening of oral stricture from27The IndoEuropean and Uralic examples are taken from Lass (1976); the Igbo ones were brought to myattention by Vincent Okeke and are documented in Clark (1990); the Yuman case is from Wares (1968) andare discussed in section 3.3.1.355[-continuant] to [+continuant].28 The Kannada-Pengo-Tamil reduction of Proto-Dravidian */c/ > /s/ > /b/> 0 illustrates this nicely. Grimm's Law in Proto-Germanic is afurther, classic example: k > x > h. These cases, then, are not counterexamples to theobservation that continuancy values can play a role in determining the output ofdebuccalization. On the contrary, given that the debuccalizing segment has a fricativestage, indicating a change of [-continuant] to [+continuant], [2] is not the predictedoutput.Synchronic stop > [h] debuccalization can also be explained in this fashion. Theinput for most synchronic stop > [h] debuccalization is (pre)aspirated stops. In the caseof Yucatec Maya (Straight 1976) one can indeed argue (as do McCarthy 1988, Lombardi1990 and Padgett 1991) for an initial process of de-obstruentization. Let us consider theYucatec data.De-obstruentization and debuccalization of homorganic plosive sequences inYucatec Maya is described by Straight (1976) as a process affecting word-final,phonetically aspirated stops and affricates when followed by another consonant.29 Whilean ejective or non-ejective consonant can serve as C2, it must be homorganic with C1,which can only be a non-ejective stop or affricate.(32) Yucatec Maya (Straight 1976)Homorganic Ci#C2 sequences where Ci is a plain stop or affricatea) taa2 k pak'ikh k kool^'We're planting our clearing'[h k]kh #k > [h k]th # ts > [11kh # k' > [h k']28! note here that the lenition route STOP > FRICATIVE > [h] argues for the presence of [-continuant] onstops. Other routes are possible, such as STOP> ASPIRATED> [h].29Straight (1976) gives the consonantal inventory of Yucatec as /p, t, ts, tf, k, 2, p', t', ts',^k', 21), s, f, h,m, n, 1, r/. h, x/ are considered marginal phonemes. Straight says that all syllable-final voiceless plosives(stops, affricates and ejectives) are released with a brief voiceless echo vowel. In phrase-final position theplain stops are in addition, somewhat aspirated. If the appearance of [Ch] is due to allophonic asipiration,then then de-obstruentization and debuccalizaiton in Yucatec are presumably post-lexical processes. Thealternative is to analyse the underlying disctinction in the stop series as aspirate vs. ejective.356[-continuant]b) Affricatests # t >[ s t]tf # t> [f t]The analysis of McCarthy (1988) and Lombardi (1990) unifies the stop/affricateclass through delinking of [-continuant].357(33) [-continuant] de-linking:t h[consonantal]# t[consonantal] [-conti uant] [-continuant]Coronal^CoronalAs a consequence of de-linking, the erstwhile stop has no value for [continuant]. This isconsidered incompatible with supralaryngeal articulation as per McCarthy (1988:7-8), sothere is subsequent debuccalization to create a placeless segment which rightly has nocontinuant feature and surfaces as [h] given the aspiration feature [+spread glottis] •30(34)#^t^---0. [h#t][consonantal]Coronalt h[consonantal]Coronal30The assumption here (not made explicit in McCarthy 1988, but mentioned in Padgett 1991) must be that{+continuant} cannot be inserted once [-continuant] has been delinked. This analysis requires the input tothe rule to be an aspirated stop (see footnote 28).-4110- [s#t][consonantal][+continuant]^[-continuant]Coronal CoronalFor affricates, delinking of [-continuant] leaves the affricate with the [+continuant]specification of the fricative portion, so that delinking of Place is not required.(34) De-occlusivization of affricatesHow might this process be viewed in light of the analysis that glottals can and dobear continuancy values? Crucially, as pointed out by Straight (1976), McCarthy (1988)and Lombardi (1990), the Yucatec data under discussion involve two processes. The firstis loss of continuancy under conditions of homorganicity. This is clearly a dissimilatoryprocess on the feature [-continuant] or [stop] in Lombardi's terms. As Padgett (1991)notes, homorganic fricatives do not undergo this process. As a consequence of the loss of[-continuant], and the fact that only plain (that is to say, non-ejective) plosives aretargetted for the rule, the analysis of glottals that I have argued for predicts exactly that[2] will not result from subsequent debuccalization. [2] cannot emerge since [-continuant]has been lost and there is no motivation for presence of the feature [+constricted glottis]on the input to the rule.3131Debuccalization does apply to Yucatec ejectives which are in phonemic constrast with the plain stopseries, but the homorganicity condition required for plain stop and affricate debuccalization is not required.The output of ejective debuccalization is [7] rather than [h]: C' # C> [2 C]. e.g. k' # s> s]. The presenceof this process suggests a general rule affecting [-continuants], with subsequent retention of releasefeatures. The point is that plain debuccalization of Ch will leave [h], of its,ti/ will leave [sj] and of C' willleave [2]. This is obviously the class of release features of the various stop-types and perhaps an analysisshould reflect this. The analysis of lenition and debuccalization presented in Harris (1990) uses a featureh° (Kay, Lowenstamm and Vergnaud 1990) which indicates a noise source common to aspirated plosivesand affricates. This goes some way towards unifying aspiration and affrication as release gestures, but itwill not draw in the electives.358Another example of stop > [h] in the theoretical literature on debuccalizationcomes from Thrdinsson's (1978) analysis of Icelandic preaspiration. In this case, too,there is an obvious interaction between the laryngeal features of the conditioning segmentand the output of debuccalization. In Icelandic aspirated geminates iphph, thth, khkhisurface as [hp,ht,hk]. This is analysed as delinking of the Place node of the first memberof the geminate pair with subsequent realization of the aspiration as segmental [h]. Notethe similarity between Icelandic and Yucatec in the sense that homorganicity (in this case,identity) is required for the rule. Assuming that this trigger de-linking of [-continuant] onstops (Padgett 1991) then the prediction in Icelandic, as well as Yucatec, is that [2] shouldnot be output.(35) Icelandic Preaspiration (Thrainnson 1978)Achaphphy^[khahpr]^'hero'nakhkha/^[2ahka]^'thank'/haththur/^[hahtrr]^'hat'To summarize, it has been argued that debuccalization of stops and fricatives to[2] and [h] respectively is most economically captured by permitting the continuancyvalues of the input to determine the output. Debuccalization processes which arepreceded by de-obstruentization or de-linking of [-continuant] are predicted not toproduce [2] since there is now no [-continuant] specification to interpret. As aconsequence, laryngeal features (in the case of Yucatec, what appears to be allophonicaspiration) are interpreted. The homorganicity condition which triggers de-linking of[-continuant] in Yucatec exists in Icelandic also. Given the derived absence of[-continuant] specifications in these cases, they do not constitute counterexamples to thegeneral claim that debuccalization respects the continuancy values of its input.3597.4 /?, h/, aspiration and ejectionThe discussion of debuccalization in Yucatec and Icelandic leads to the issue ofinteraction between aspiration and [h] as well as glottalization and [2]. It is not proposedhere that there is no relationship between aspiration as a phonation gesture and [h], orejection and Pt Rather, it is claimed that unless there are inventory reasons for thepresence of phonation features, phonemic glottals are not represented with [+ constrictedglottis] or [+spread glottis].Consider the representation for glottals as given in (3), repeated here as (36)(36)/2/^ /h/Lc -osnosnoonr a nttjj[-continuant]-sonorantL+consonantalNeither /2/ nor /h/ have a Laryngeal Node, and assuming [voice], [constrictedglottis] and [spread glottis] to be unary features, /2, h/ will not receive specifications forany of these features. The claim of these representations is that Laryngeal Node featurescan be phonologically irrelevant for glottal articulations. Given an inventory such asMenomini (see (1)), which makes no phonemic use of [constricted glottis, spread glottis]for consonantal contrast, there is simply no need for /V to be specified [+constrictedglottis] or /h/ as [+spread glottis]. They would be the only segments in the language torequire laryngeal features other than [voice]. In general, this analysis is supported by thesystemic typology developed in Chapter 3. While there is a strong implicationalrelationship between the presence of [11 given C', and /h/ given Ch, the reverse implicationis nowhere near as strong. /2/ occurs without C' some 65% of the time; /h/ occurs without/Ch/ 67% of the time. Further substantiation of the independence of glottalization andaspiration as phonation gestures from segmental glottal stop and /h/ is the fact that C' is360not always dependent on the presence of /2/. Neither is the presence of Ch alwaysdependent on the presence of /h/.The typology developed in Chapter 3 also indicates that rounding andpalatalization are the most common secondary articulations, but their frequency ofoccurrence is less than that of glottalization and aspiration. There is a further asymmetryin the distribution of glottal features as opposed to labialization and palatalization.Rounding and palatalization each have a clear preferential affiliation with a particularplace of articulation (Dorsal and Coronal respectively). Glottalization and aspiration, onthe other hand, occur freely across all places of articulation, being neutral with respect tothe Place of their host, precisely because neither adds Place information to interact withwhat already exists (see section 3.4). This understanding is usually embodied in the viewthat glottalization and aspiration are phonation gestures. They are an addition to what isordinarily voicelessness with a Place for Ch and C', or voicing with a Place for breathyvoiced segments and implosives.This is not to say that there is no relationship between laryngeals and C' or Ch in agiven language. In those languages where C' exists phonemically, there may be anexplicit phonological relationship between and C'. It is precisely in these cases thatLaryngeal Node features are available in the phonology and /?, h/ may indeed havephonologically active laryngeal features.361To illustrate the possible interaction, consider Klamath (Barker 1964, Clements1985). Klamath debuccalizes /1h, l'/ to [h] and [2], depending on the Laryngeal Nodefeatures of the input.32(37) Klamath (Barker 1964)nl -->11 /honli:na/ [holli:na] 'flies along the bank'nlh-->lh /honlh/ [holh] 'flies into'nl'-->12 /honl'sa:l'a/ [hol?al'a] 'flies into the fire'1 lh-->lh ipa:11hai [pa:lha] 'dries on'11'-->1? ljaljal?i] 'clear'This then is a nice case of debuccalization of C' to [2] and Ch to [h], with thephonemically contrastive laryngal node features of the input determining the output.Klamath has both /h/ and N.Kashaya provides examples of another type of interaction, Glottal Merger, whereC+? --> C'; C + /h/ --> Ch. Buckley (1992) shows that Glottal Merger in Kashaya appliesonly in derived environments, as predicted by the Strict Cycle Condition (Kiparsky1985). The outputs are phonetically identical to the underlying ejectives and aspirates ofthe inventory. Given the presence of underlying aspirates and ejectives, there is evidencefor laryngeal phonation gestures. The examples below show merger of the Assertiveclitic /-?/ with plain voiceless consonants.(38) Kashaya Glottal Merger (Buckley 1991)V#-2 hayu-?^hayti?^'it's a dog'C#-? qahmat-?^qahmat'^'he's angry'sulem4-2^sulemak'^'it's acorn grounds'qanemac-?^qanemac'^'it's a relative'mihyoq-7^mihydq'^'it's a woodrat'321 follow Clements (1985) and Lombardi (1991) here in regarding voicelessness on the sonorants asphonological aspiration.362363C^2^C'I-1 I-1,I^*^___00. It^[+cons] [+cons] [+cons]I^LN^LN........,„IIIPlace [+contr gl]^[+contr gl]On the other hand, Shaw's (1989) analysis of Dakota argues that despite underlying /h/, C+ /h/ does not derive Ch. As a consequence, it cannot be claimed that there must be aninteraction between /?/ and C', /h/ and Ch, even given the phonemic presence of both in aninventory.337.5 Glottals and continuancyOne charge against the analysis of glottals bearing distinctive values forcontinuancy is the apparent paucity of phonological processes referring to such featuresand including glottals. I suggest that this is an overstatement of what little is knownabout the behaviour of glottals. Independent of debuccalization, there are indications thatglottals can and do function on the basis of values for continuancy.Shaw (1991a, 1991b) makes a persuasive case for [-continuant] as the onlylexically available feature value of continuancy. The data on which this argumentation isbased come from Tahltan (Shaw 1989b, Shaw 1991a) and Nisgha (Shaw 1991b). Both ofthese languages have stops, affricates and fricatives at the Coronal place of articulation.Here I wish to consider the Nisgha data, since they provide strong argumentation for /?/as [-continuant], as argued in Shaw (1991b). Shaw's analysis of the Nisgha data providesstrong evidence for the phonological participation of /2/ in the entire stop series of thelanguage. The representations proposed by Shaw (1991b) for the Nisgha post-velars are33M. Krauss (personal communication) informs me that there is no evidence for decomposition of C' to C7or vice versa in Tlinget, for example, despite the phonemic presence of both C' and /2/.given in (39).34 /2, h/ are analysed as obstruents with a Pharyngeal place of articulation,along the lines of McCarthy (1991).364(39) Nisgha uvulars and glottals: Shaw (1991b)35/7/^/h/[-son] [-s n]L R]^[-cont] [L^I^P1 0P1 0I^[+spr I[[PHAR]^PHAR]/q/[-son]r-c4'ont]P1 7[P AR]/q7/x/[-sin]^ [-s n]I^[L R]^[-cont]P1 P1[+glot][PHAR] [PFIAR]The evidence for Nisgha laryngeals as non-continuants comes from a CVC-reduplication pattern with subsequent reduction of the vowel of the reduplicated prefix toa quality predictable from the consonantal context (Tarpent 1983, 1987; Shaw 1987,1991b; Walsh 1990).(40) Nisgha CVC- reduplicationqd:p^qap+qd:p^'to scratch st.'tsam^tsim+tsam^'to boil, cook st.'2dx 2ax+2dx^'to throw St.'7ds^2as+Ais^'dog'34The Nisgha consonantal inventory is p, p', t, t', ts, ts', X', k, k', kw, kw', q, q', s, f, x, xw, x, h, m, m', n, n',1, y, y', w,^(Tarpent 1983, 1987).35While there is no clear evidence for or against a Laryngeal Node specification for /h/, but Shaw (1991b)argues that /h/ must be Pharyngeal, while /7/ is both Pharyngeal and [+glottalized].Of interest is what happens with (i) the reduplication of stops with fricative counterparts,(ii) affricates and (iii) glottalized segments when in C2 position of the root.(41)i) +6:q (ax+16:q 'to wake or get up early't'akw t'uxw+eakw 'to twist st.'ii) pats pis+pats 'to lift, carry st.'hits has+hits 'to send st.'iii) hit' hat+hit' 'to stick'haw' haw+(h)aw"to stop, go home'(41.i) illustrates a process of stop spirantization, (41 .ii) a process of deaffrication, (41 .iii)a process of deglottalization. All processes occur at the right edge of the reduplicatedtemplate. The processes can be combined, so the glottalized lateral affricate A' 1=--both deaffricates and deglottalizes to [it(42)a) ts'a^X' ts'if+ts'a X'^'music record (sg.)/to have rippled surface^hats^has-hats^'to bite st.'lax+la:cfal^'to examine st.'b) t'a?^t'ax+t'a?^'to clap'qó? q'ax+qa?^'to go somewhere; to go get st. or sbdy'Shaw (1991b) formalizes spirantization and deaffrication as a single rule of [-continuant]delinldng from [-sonorant], and deglottalization as Laryngeal Node delinldng. Under thisanalysis, the previously curious alternation of PI with [x] in this reduplication pattern(42b) is predicted from the application of these two rules on the underlying representationof M. Thus, given that C', 12, h/ are represented with a Laryngeal Node, deglottalization365[-continuant][Lary geal]is predicted to affect /7/ in C2 position of a reduplicated root. /h/ does not occur in codaposition and so is not affected by this rule. Furthermore, since it is [-sonorant] and [-continuant], /2/ is targetted by the spirantization rule. Given the underlying representationof /2/ with a Pharyngeal node, the rules of Laryngeal Node loss and [-continuant]delinking jointly result in the representation for [x]• This is the attested pattern.366(43) Spirantization and deglottalization of /7//2/[-sonorant][X][-sonorant]Place^ Place[Pharyngeal] [Pharyngeal]Crucially, the success of this analysis depends on /7/ bearing the feature values [-sonorant, -continuant] along with other stops and affricates in the inventory. All [-continuant] segments are targetted by the spirantization rule, but since there are nofricative counterparts for /p, p', t, t'/ structure preservation correctly predicts that the rulewill be blocked from applying.In general, for ri, h/ to be targetted as obstruents, rules must be found which applyto continuancy values independent of Place. Spirantization processes targetting /p, t, k/,for example will exclude /?/ if the rule refers to the subset of obstruents bearing Placespecifications. In fact, we predict this possibility given the Placelessness of /2/. In thisrespect the Nisgha data are crucial, since they illustrate the predicted possibility that /7/can function phonologically on the basis of continuancy specifications.There are other examples of /7/ patterning as a [-continuant], although theprocesses are allophonic. The Interior Salish rule of syllable-final aspiration of voicelessstops targets /p, t, k, q, 2/ was already shown (section 7.1.2). Nisgha PI is releasedsyllable-finally (with an echo-vowel), as are its other voiceless stops in the same position.Rawang (Morse 1963) has the inverse allophonic rule to Salish and Nisgha. /p, t, k, ?/ arereported unreleased word-finally. Further indication that /?/ is at least [consonantal] inRawang is its inclusion in the class of possible coda consonants /p, t, k, m, n, g, r, 1/ but1w, j/ are not.Rice and Avery (1991) discuss a rule of sonorant-obstruent alternation in Yagaria(Move dialect). This rule strengthens /1/ to [t], /v/ to [p] and /m/ to [b] when thesonorants appear after /2/, which is the only possible syllable-final obstruent in thelanguage. Having conditioned obstruentization, the glottal stop subsequently deletes.This deletion might be viewed as dissimilation on the feature [-sonorant] since [2-1]sequences are permitted, but the obstruent [t] appears only with subsequent deletion ofr2/.36 This is not evidence for glottals bearing continuancy values, but once arguably [-sonorant], then the bearing of continuancy values is consistent with the class of [-sonorant] segments.7.6 Underspecification and licensingAs noted in chapter 3, a very striking feature of A h/ is that they tend not to takesecondary articulations which otherwise occur fairly freely with other places ofarticulation. Of 242 languages with some sort of secondary articulation, 4% (10languages) include glottals which bear phonemically distinctive secondary articulation.37The formal representation of secondary articulations is currently a matter of debate.Various means are employed, such as the addition of a V-place node (Clements 1991) orof a glide (E. Pulleyblank 1992), or one might do as Sagey (1986) and McCarthy (1991)and stipulate what is a primary and what a secondary articulation. Independent of theformal representation of secondary (or complex) articulations, the resistance of glottals to36 Under Rice and Avery's proposal for a node Spontaneous Voice, which sonorants but not obstruentsbear, the rule is one delinking Spontaneous Voice.37Bessell (1992) proposes a constraint to account for this, but since this constraint is not absolute (given the10 cases of glottals with supposed secondary articulation) it may be premature to formalize it as such.367labialization, palatalization and pre-nasalization demands an explanation. That thisresistance relates to the formal Placelessness of glottals is indicated by the patterning ofcoronals with glottals in the distribution of labialization.Recall (section 3.3.2.1) that labialization shows a clear preference for Dorsalsegments, followed by Coronal, Labial and Glottal segments. The avoidance oflabialized Labials is trivially accounted for in the sense that the addition of a Labial nodeto a segment that is already Labial is vacuous. Those inventories with rounded Labials(16 languages in Ruhlen (1975), 11.7% of all languages with labialized segments) can beaccounted for if the feature [round] is active. This leaves the avoidance of roundedcoronals and glottals to be accounted for.With respect to the distribution of labialization, glottals and Coronals patterntogether in two ways: they are never the only site for labialization in a language but theycan be the only segments in an inventory to lack rounding (6 cases). Thus, glottals andcoronals cannot be identified as the only focus of rounding; on the other hand they can beidentified as the only exceptions to rounding. How might this be accounted for?Currently it is argued that in the unmarked case coronals may be (universally)unspecified for Place (Paradis and Prunet 1991 and papers therein). 38 Some authorsrequire that they lack a Place node altogether, at least in underlying representation (46a),while others argue that the Place node must be present (46b) under certain circumstances(Avery and Rice 1989), although the Coronal node itself may not be. 3938 But see Trigo (1988) and Rice (1991) for arguments that Dorsal is a possible interpretation of anunspecified Place node.39 It is an implication of the general analysis of Placeless glottals without Laryngeal Node features that ininventories with phonemic glottals, underspecified coronals may have to have a Place node even if theylack the Articulator node Coronal. In inventories with phonemic glottals that are not characterized byLaryngeal Node features coronals are predicted not to have the representation in (46a) and must insteadhave one of (46b) or (46c). Avery and Rice (1989) present evidence which constrains the absence of aPlace node for underspecified coronals via the Node Activation Convention, and it may be that the presenceof glottals in an inventory functions as a further constraint on the underspecification of Coronals. TheNode Activation Convention states that if a feature is distinctive for a class of segments in a phonologicalsystem then the Node which dominates that feature is activated for that class of segments. Active nodesmust be present in Underlying Representation. See Paradis and Prunet (1991) and papers therein forproposals advocating (46a).368(46) Possible Coronal Representationsa)^t b) t^c) trronoll^-coonlEi-coonl^-s -s -sPlace^PlaceCoronalIf the algorithm for rounding in an inventory scans at the level of the Place Node, thenPlaceless glottals will always be passed by. Inventories without glottals but withunderspecified coronals can assume (46a) for coronals, and so likewise escape rounding.Inventories with underspecified coronals and Placeless glottals will have to note that thePlace node has no dependents in order to pass both by. The six inventories in Ruhlenwhich round segments at all places of articulation except coronals and glottals may beaccounted for in this manner.40Such an explanation for the distribution of rounding allows scanning at the levelof the Place node and Articulator nodes. If this is correct, we might expect to find casesof scanning for structure or feature content at the level of the root node. This will resultin cases of flw, hw/. There are six languages in Ruhlen (1975) which labialize glottalswhere /hw/ cannot be argued to be phonologically Dorsal on the basis of inventorysymmetry. These are Kabardian, Adyge, Ryukyuan, Taishan, Yay and Tlingit. TheCircassian languages Kabardian and Adyge round only [-sonorant, +consonantal]obstruents regardless of Place, including 12w / . Such data support the claim that glottals40That is, assuming the phonology of these languages supports the analysis of its glottals without LaryngealNode features as well as Coronal underspecification. In the absence of a proper investigation of therelevant languages (Arosi (Austro-Tai). Cora (Aztec-Tanoan), Mataca (Ge-Pano-Carib), Motlav (Austro-Tai) and Marshallese) the exact details of the proposals made here remain uncertain and may requirerevision.369may be targetted for labialization based on their participation in the class of [-sonorant,+consonantal] segments.41(47) Adyge Circassian (Kumaxov 1967 via Ruhlen 1975)370ph pv prVV^th tt t'w^khw k'w^q qW^2 2'wb^d gWtSh tst tshw ch chj c, cijdz dzw^jf^s f fi Sw ft f'WZ 3 3i 3wm^nt I f'X xwYX Xw^his iswrWith respect to the one other case of 'secondary' articulation on a glottal, /02/ inAdzera, it was noted (section 3.3.2.2) that only [-continuant] obstruents can be labialized.This too is predicted as a possibility if the root node content is referenced for thedistribution of prenasalization in this language. Again the point is proved that /2/ canpattern as a stop.I have suggested in various places that 12, h/ are predicted or licensed by thepresence of other stops and fricatives in an inventory. The systemic typology developedin Chapter 3 supports this general assumption in so far as it is possible to do so, given thelimited occurrence of inventories without voiceless stops or /s/ (see section 3.3). Thedistribution of rounding and prenasalization discussed above confirms the representationof glottals with the root node [+consonantal, -sonorant] which is common to allobstruents. I suggest that ri, h/ are common as epenthetic segments precisely because theonly features required for their representation are available in virtually every inventory.410f the remaining four cases, Ryukyuan and Taishan have rounded velars and flw/ only. No othersegments in the inventory are rounded. Yay has rounded velars and / 2w, hw/ only. This indicates someaffiliation between Dorsal place and glottals, for which I have no explanation (cf. Rice 1991). The sixthcase, Tlingit, is marginal, as I am told that the occurrence of /hw/ in Tlingit is rare and may be derivable M.Krauss (p.c.), 1991.If one were to constrain all the possible combinations of the features, the combination[+consonantal, -sonorant, +/- continuant] is not likely to be illicit. As a consequence, thephonetic ubiquity of 11, h/ is predicted, providing they are indeed obstruents bearingcontinuancy values. As such they are the most reduced version of their respectiveclasses: stop and fricative.7.7 ConclusionsI conclude that there is considerable cross-linguistic evidence from a range ofsources that glottal stop and /11/ are properly regarded as voiceless obstruents bearingvalues for continuancy. In the default case, such glottals are Placeless and are not the[+consonantal] alternant of the low vowel /a/. Furthermore, the analysis of glottals asPlaceless obstruents interacts in a predictive way with the theory of Placeunderspecification. Specifically, it predicts constraints on representation in inventorieswith phonemic glottals and coronals which may address the current problem ofindeterminate representations for underspecified coronals. A third aspect of the anlaysisof glottals as the prototypical minimal stop and fricative is their alliance with schwa asthe prototypical miminal, epenthetic and reduced vowel. I have not explored thisinteraction, but it is easily derived from the representations I have argued for: glottals areplaceless minimal obstruents, schwa is the minimal placeless vowel. Elements in thecomposition of both segment types are provided by the mere presence of the two majorcategories of speech sounds—Consonant and Vowel—present in every inventory. Inneither case are Place specifications or Laryngeal Node specifications required. Theoccurrence of 12, h, a/ as (i) epenthetic and (ii) reduced versions of their segment types isa natural consequence of the analysis presented here.However, confirmation of the analysis of glottals as phonologically Placelesssegments within Articulator feature geometry raises some questions, given therepresentations proposed by McCarthy (1991) for Semitic and Shaw (1991b) for Nisgha.371For example, is the appearance of a Pharyngeal laryngeal constrained by anything? Whyis it that most laryngeals are not Pharyngeal? McCarthy (1991) shows that it cannot bethe case, even in Semitic, that glottals are always Pharyngeal. For example, Tigre data(Palmer 1956, Lowenstamm and Prunet 1988) show ejectives and pharyngeals, but notlaryngeals conditioning variation in low vowel quality. Furthermore, section 6.1.2 notedthe complementary distribution of laryngeals and pharyngeals in the precursor to KoySanjaq: pharyngeals occur with words containing an emphatic, laryngeals do not. This,like the Tigre data, argues for laryngeals and pharyngeals not sharing feature or nodespecifications. McCarthy is obliged to conclude that even given the presence of a fourthnode, languages simply specify the patterning that their laryngeals adopt. The presenceof a fourth node does not require that laryngeals be represented under it and has nopredictive power with respect to laryngeal patterning. The Salish data presented inchapter 6 make this point very forcefully.Given the results from Salish, one might wonder if the Semitic and Nisgha datacould be reanalysed using Placeless laryngeals. It does not appear that this is possible.For example, Besse11 and Czaykowska-Higgins (1991) suggest that the bifurcation ofPlace into Oral and Pharyngeal might be a way to view Semitic laryngeals as Placeless,since the gutturals would be the class of non-Oral segments. However, this suggestionultimately stumbles on the problem of referring to unmarked values in stating Semiticmorpheme structure constraints (section 6.1.1). 42 Unless there is corroborating evidencefor rule reference of this type, it is difficult to define the class of gutturals by what theyare not and have rules refer to this. As a consequence, it appears unavoidable at presentthat we permit languages to stipulate whether their laryngeals are Placeless orPharyngeal, regardless of the presence of phonemic pharyngeals in the language.Furthermore, Shaw (1991b) argues that Nisgha is a language in which both Pharyngeal42As McCarthy (p.c.) has pointed out.372and placeless laryngeals occur, and so is a predicted case of pure stipulation of bothpossible representations.43It remains to be seen if Caucasian, Nootka or Haida data have anything to say onthe matter. It is also noteworthy that the two known cases of Pharyngeal laryngeals comefrom languages with phonemic post-velar segments: Nisgha has uvulars and the Semiticlanguages have uvular if not always pharyngeals. The unconstrained stipulation ofPharyngeal laryngeals predicts that languages without uvulars or pharyngeals maydemonstrate the effects of Pharyngeal laryngeals. No such cases are known to me.37343Nisgha epenthetic [h] does not trigger Pharyngeal vowel-colouration in the way that underlyingPharyngeal /11/ does (Shaw 1991b).Chapter Eight: Conclusions and Future ResearchThis dissertation develops a typology of post-velar articulation from the point ofview of available inventory, phonetic and phonological studies. The post-velar inventoryof Interior Salish is examined acoustically in an attempt to place it within the phonetictypology of post-velars as understood from work on Semitic and Caucasian. Since this isthe first acoustic investigaton of Salish it cannot have the authority of the years ofresearch that have gone on in Semitic studies. Much remains to be done, but given thatso much of the data considered has previously been unavailable, an extensive appendix ofspectrograms is provided. The basic finding of the acoustic work is that the InteriorSalish post-velar class is commensurate with what is known about post-velar articulationbased on Semitic data and articulatory modelling.The Salish phonological data support the extension of articulator-based featuregeometry to a fourth node, here termed Tongue Root. It is shown that the fourth node isrequired to class Interior Salish faucals and accomodate their participation in harmonyprocesses. Furthermore, constraints on the phonology of the fourth node in InteriorSalish suggest that we are dealing with an ATR phenomenon. This is an encouragingresult in the sense that it confirms the existence of Tongue Root consonants and does notconfine the fourth node to vowels. The analysis of Interior Salish laryngeals without thefourth node that characterizes their Semitic counterparts corroborates our understandingof laryngeals as lacking Place specifications in the default case. Furthermore, it is arguedthat the descriptivist and Dependency Phonology view of laryngeals as minimal stop andfricative is phonologically appropriate, and that laryngeals do not necessarily bearLaryngeal Node features.Given the theoretical interest of laryngeal patterning in Interior Salish, a majorquestion in Salish studies has to be: What has happened to the pharyngeals of InteriorSalish in the Coastal languages. In this respect, reports of laryngeal lowering in374Sliammon (Blake 1992) are intriguing and undoubtedly crucial. However, suchinvestigations must be undertaken bearing in mind that the investigation of Interior Salishlaryngeals has shown that lack of coarticulation from laryngeals can give the percept oflowering, but it may be better understood as phonetic laxing which is predictable from theformal Placelessness of glottals. Within work on Interior Salish, the distribution andbehaviour of retracted roots remains problematic, particularly with respect to the questionof Dorsal transparency. Further fieldwork will be required to approach this issue, andpossibly acoustic work.There is no question that the Caucasian data must be examined, since they maycast further light on the patterning of post-velars. The same is true for Nootka and Haidamaterial though both of these cases are unlike Interior Salish in that the pharyngeals areclearly derived from uvulars.375Bibiliography and referencesAbboud, Peter (1979) "The Verb in Northern Najdi Arabic," Bulletin of the School ofOriental and African Studies 42,467 -499.Abdel-Massih, Ernst (1973) An Introduction to Moroccan Arabic, Center for NearEastern and African Studies, Ann Arbor.Abdel-Massih, Ernst (1974) Advanced Moroccan Arabic, Center for Near Eastern andAfrican Studies, Ann Arbor.Abdoul-Fetouh, Hilmi M. (1969) A Morphological Study of Egyptian Colloquial Arabic,Mouton, The Hague.Abercrombie, D. (1967) Elements of General Phonetics, Edinburgh University Press,Edinburgh.Adamson, B. (1981) "A Spectrographic Analysis of Pharyngeal Consonants in SudaneseArabic," Phonetics Laboratory University of Reading Work in Progress 3, 81-96.Akinlabi, A. (1991) "Supralaryngeal Deletion in Yoruba Glides," Proceedings of the WestCoast Conference in Formal Linguistics 10, 13 -26.Ali, L. H. and Daniloff, R.G. (1972a) "A Contrastive Cineflourographic Investigation ofthe Articulation of Emphatic-Non Emphatic Cognate Consonants," StudiaLinguistica 26, 81 - 105.Ali, L. H. and Daniloff, R.G. (1972b) "A Cineflourographic-Phonologic Investigation ofEmphatic Sound Assimilation in Arabic," in Proceedings of the SeventhInternational Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Mouton, The Hague.Ali, L. H. and Daniloff, R.G. (1974) "The Perception of Coarticulated Emphaticness,"Phonetica 29, 225-231.Alwan, A. (1986) Acoustic and Perceptual Correlates of Uvular and PharyngealConsonants, MA dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.al-Ani, S. (1967) "An Acoustical and Psychological Investigation of the Arabic rn," Actsof the Xth International Congress of Linguists , Bucharest.376al-Ani, S. (1970) Arabic Phonology, The Hague, Mouton.al-Ani, S.(1973) "The Development and Distribution of the Arabic Sound 'Qaf," inDonald P. Little (ed) Essays on Islamic Civilization, Leiden,Brill.al-Ani, S. ed. (1978) Readings in Arabic Linguistics, Indiana University LinguisticsClub, Bloomington, Indiana.al-Ani, S. and M. el-Dalee (1984) "Tafkhim in Arabic, the Acoustic and PsychologicalParameters," Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of PhoneticSciences, Mouton, The Hague.al-Ani, S. and D. May (1973) "The Phonological Structure of the Syllable in Arabic,"American Journal of Arabic Studies 1,3 7-49.al-Mozainy, Hamza Q. (1981) Vowel Alternations in a Bedouin Hijazi Arabic Dialect,Abstractness and Stress, PhD Dissertaton, University of Texas at Austin.Aoki, H. (1970) "A Note on Glottalized Consonants," Phonetica 21, 65-74.Archangeli, D. and D. Pulleyblank (1986) "The Content and Structure of PhonologicalRepresentations," ms., University of Arizona and University of SouthernCalifornia.Archangeli, D. and D. Pulleyblank (1987) "Maximal and Minimal Scansion, Effects ofTier Scansion," Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society 17, 16-35.Archangeli, D. and D. Pulleyblank (1989) "Yoruba vowel harmony," Linguistic Inquiry20(2), 173-219.Archangeli, D. and D. Pulleyblank (1992) "Grounded Phonology," ms., University ofArizona and University of British Columbia.Atal, B., J. Chang, M. Mathews and J. Tukey (1978) "Inversion of the Articulatory-to-Acoustic Transformation in the Vocal Tract by a Computer-Sorting Technique,"Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 63(5), 1535 - 1555.Avery, P. and K. Rice (1989) "Segment Structure and Coronal Underspecification,"Phonology Yearbook 6.Bach, E. (1990) "Word-formation in Haisla," Talk given at the University of BritishColumbia.377Bagemihl, B. (1992) "Syllable Structure in Bella Coola," Linguistic Inquiry 22(4), 589-646.Bakalla, M.H. (1984) "The Study of Vowel Quality by Early Arab and MuslimPhoneticians," Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of the PhoneticSciences, Mouton, The Hague.Barker, M. (1964) Klamath Grammar, University of California Press, Berkeley.Bates, D. and B. Carlson (1989) "Prosodic Structure in Spokane Morphology," ms.,Arizona State University and University of Victoria.Bates, D. and B. Carlson (1992) "Simple Syllables in Spokane Salish," LinguisticInquiry, 23.4, 653-659.Bateson, Mary C. (1964) Arabic Language Handbook. , Centre for Applied Linguistics,Washington D.C.Behnstedt, Peter (1987) Die Dialeckte der Gegend von Sa'dah (Nord Jemen),Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden.Bender, B. (1971) "Micronesian languages.," in T. Sebeok (ed) Current Trends inLinguistics 8, Mouton, The Hague.Bessell, N. (1990) "Tongue Root Harmony in Coeur d'Alene," ms., University of BritishColumbia.Bessell, N. (1992) "The Typological Status of f?, hi," Proceedings of the ChicagoLinguistic Society 28.Bessell, N. and E. Czaykowska-Higgins (1991) "Interior-Salish Evidence for PlacelessLaryngeals," Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society 21.Bessell, N. and D. Remnant (1989) "Tongue Root Articulations," ms., University ofBritish Columbia.Bhat, D.N.S ( 1974) "Retroflexion and Retraction," Journal of Phonetics 2, 233-237.Biggs, B. (1971) "The Languages of Polynesia," in T. Sebeok (ed.) Current Trends inLinguistics 6, Mouton, The Hague.378Blanc, Haim (1953) Studies in North Palestinian Arabic , Israeli Oriental Society,Jerusalem.Blanc, Haim (1964) Communal Dialects in Baghdad, Centre for Middle EasternStudies, Harvard.Blanc, Haim 1967) "The 'Sonorous' vs. 'Muffled' Distinction in Old Arabic Phonology,"in To Honour Roman Jakobson I, Mouton, The Hague.Blanc, Haim (1971) The Arabic Dialect of the Neger Bedouins, Jerusalem.Blake, S. (1992) Two Aspects of Sliammon tia2aminganJ: GlidelObstruent Alternationand Vowel Length, M.A. Dissertation, University of British Columbia.Blare, J. (1980) "Stages in the Weakening of Laryngeals/Pharyngeals in BiblicalHebrew," LeN 5/1, 32-39.Blight, R. and E. Pike (1976) "The Phonolgoy of Terango Otomi," International Journalof American Linguistics 42, 51-57.Bloomfield, L. (1962) The Menomini Language, Yale University Press, New Haven.Boas, F. and E. Deloria (1932) "Notes on the Dakota, Teton Dialect," InternationalJournal of American Linguistics 7, 92-121.Boff Dkhissi, M.-C. (1983) "Contribution a l'Etude Experimentale des Consonnesd'Arriere de l'Arabe Classique (Locateurs Morocains)," Tray. Inst. Phon.Strasbourg 15.Bogoraz, W. (1922) "Chukchee," in F. Boaz (ed.) Handbook of American IndianLanguages 2, Washington, D.C..Borden, G. and K. Harris (1984) Speech Science Primer, Williams and Wilkins,Baltimore.Brame, M. (1970) Arabic Phonology, Implications for Phonological Theory andHistorical Semitic, PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Brame, M. (1972) "On the Abstractness of Phonology, Maltese 1," in M.Brame (ed.)Contributions to Generative Phonology, Austin, University of Texas Press.379Brockett, A. (1985) "The Spoken Arabic of Khabura on the Batimna of Oman," Journalof Semitic Studies Monograph 7, University of Manchester, Manchester.Broselow, E. (1979) "Cairene Arabic Syllable Structure," Linguistic Analysis 5, 345-382.Buckley, E. (1992) Theoretical Aspects of Kashaya Phonology and Morphology, PhDdissertation, University of California at Berkeley.Butcher, A. and K. Ahmad (1987) "Some Acoustic and Aerodynamic Characteristics ofPharyngeal Consonants in Iraqi Arabic," Phonetica 44, 156-172.Calabrese, A. (1988) Towards a Theory of Phonological Alphabets, PhD dissertation,Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Campbell, L. and M. Mithun (eds) (1979) The Languages of Native America, Historicaland Comparative assessment, University of Texas Press, Austin.Cantineau, J. (1934) Le Dialecte Arabe de Palmyre, Mem. de l'Institut Francais deDamas, Beirut.Cantineau, J. (1946) Les Parlers Arabes du Horen, Collection Linguistique, Paris.Cantineau, J. (1947) "Esquisse d'une Phonologie de l'Arabe Classique," Bulletin de laSociete de Linguistique de Paris 43.Cantineau, J. (1950) "Reflexions sur la Phonologie de l'Arabe Marocain," Hesperis 37,193-207.Cantineau, J. (1952) "Le Consantisme du Semitique," Semitica 4.Cantineau, J. (1960) Etudes de Linquistique Arabe, Klincksieck, Paris.Cantineau, J. (1960) Cours de Phonetique Arabe, Klincksieck, Paris.Cantineau, J. and Youssef Helbaoui (1953) Manuel Elementaire d'Arabe Orientale(Parler de Damas), Klincksieck, Paris.Card, E. (1983) A Phonetic and Phonological Study of Arabic Emphasis, PhDdissertation, Cornell University.380Carlson, B. (1972) A Grammar of Spokan, PhD dissertation, University of Hawaii.(Distributed as University of Hawaii Working Papers in Linguistics 4.4)Carlson, B. (1980) "Spokane -e - ," International Journal of American Lingusitics 46(2),78-84.Carlson, B. and P. Flett (1989) Spokane Dictionary, University of Montana OccasionalPapers in Linguistics 6, Missoula.Catford, J.C. (1977a) Fundamental Problems in Phonetics, Edinburgh^UniversityPress, Edinburgh.Catford, J.C. (1977b) "Mountains of Tongues, the Languages of the Caucasus," AnnualReview of Anthropology 6, 283 -314.Catford, J.C. (1983) "Pharyngeal and Laryngeal Sounds in Caucasian Languages," inDiane M. Bless and James H. Abbs (eds.) Vocal Fold Physiology, ContemporaryResearch and Clinical Issues, College Hill Press, San Diego.Catford, J.C. (1988) A Practical Introduction to Phonetics, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Chiba, T. and M. Kajiyama (1940) The Vowel- its Nature and Structure, KaiseikanPublishing Co., Tokyo.Choi, J. (1990) "Kabardian Vowels Revisited," UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 74,1-15.Chomsky, N. and M. Halle (1968) The Sound Pattern of English, MIT Press, Cambridge.Chumbow, S. (1982) "Ogori Vowel Harmony; an Autosegmental Perspective," LinguisticAnalysis 10.1, 61-93.Chung, S. (1983) "Trans-Derivational Relationships in Chamorro Phonology," Language59, 35-66.Clark, M. (1990) The Tonal System of Igbo, Foris, Dordrecht.Clements, N. (1985) "The Geometry of Phonological Features," Phonology Yearbook2, 225-252.381Clements, N. (1989) "On the Representation of Vowel Height," ms., Cornell University.Clements, N. (1991) "Place of Articulation in Consonants and Vowels, a Unifiedtheory," in B. Laks and A. Railland (eds.) L'architecture et la geometrie desrepresentations phonologiques, Editions du C.N.R.S, Paris.Cohen, D. (1969) "Sur le Statut Phonologique de l'Emphases en Arabe,"Word 25, 59-69.Cohen, D. (1970) "Les Deux Parlers Arabes de Tunis," in Etudes de LinguistiqueSemitique et Arabe, Mouton, The Hague.Colarusso, J. (1988) The Northwest Caucasian languages, a Phonological Survey,Garland, New York.Cole, J. (1987) Planar Phonology and Morphology, PhD dissertation, MassachusettsInstitute of Technology.Comrie, B. (1981) The Languages of the Soviet Union, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.Cook, E.-D. (1983) "Chilcotin Flattening," Canadian Journal of Linguistics/RevueCanadienne de Linguistique 28, 123 - 132.Cook, E. -D. (1987) "An Autosegmental Analysis of Chilcotin Flattening," Proceedingsof the Chicago Linguistic Society 23, 51 -66.Corriente, F. (1977) A Grammatical Sketch of the Spanish Arabic Dialect Bundle,Instituto Hispano-Arabe de Cultura Direccion General de RelacionesCulturas, Madrid.Cowan, W. (1966) "Loss of Emphasis in Maltese,"Journa/ of Maltese Studies 3, 27.Cowan, William (1970) "A persistent rule in Maltese," Canadian Journal ofLinguistics/Revue Canadienne de Linguistique 15(2), 122 -28.Czaykowska-Higgins, E. (1983) Ms. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Czaykowska-Higgins, E. (1987) "Characterizing Tongue Toot Behaviour," ms.Massachusetts Institute of Technology.382Czaykowska-Higgins, E. (1990) "Retraction in Moses-Columbia Salish," Papers for the25th International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages.Czaykowska-Higgins, E. (1992) "Morphological and Phonological Domains ofNxa2amxcin," ms., University of British Columbia.Czaykowska-Higgins, E. (to appear) "Cyclicity and Stress in Moses-Columbia Salish,"Natural Language and Linguistic Inquiry.Czaykowska-Higgins, E. (in preparation) "Tongue Root Harmony in Moses-ColumbiaSalish (Nxa2amxcin)," University of British Columbia.Daniloff, R. (1973) "Normal Articulation Processes," in Minife, F., Hixon, T. and F.Williams.(eds.) Normal Aspects of Speech, Hearing and Language,Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.Delattre, P. (1971) "Pharyngeal Features in the Consonants of Arabic, German, Spanish,French, and American English," Phonetica 23, 129-155.Doak, I. (1987) "Coeur d'Alene Vowel Harmony," in Papers of the 22nd InternationalConference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages.Doak, I. (1989) "A Non-Linear Solution to Proto-Salish Retraction," in Papers from the24th International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages.Doak, 1(1992) "Another Look at Coeur d'Alene Harmony," International Journal ofAmerican Linguistics 58(1), 1-35.Dolgopolsky, A. (1977) "Emphatic Consonants in Semitic," Israel Oriental Studies 71-13.Dunstan, E. (1969) Twelve Nigerian Languages, Cambridge Univeristy Press,Cambridge.Durand, J. (1986) "On the Phonological Status of Glides, the Evidence from Malay," inJ. Anderson and J. Durand (eds.) Explorations in Dependency Phonology, Foris,Dordrecht.El-Dalee, Mohamed Saleh (1984) The Feature of Retraction in Arabic, PhDdissertation, Indiana University.383El- Halees, Y. (1985) "The Role of Fl in the Place-of-Articulation Distinction in Arabic,"Journal of Phonetics 13, 287 -298.van Eijk, J. P. (1985) The Lillooet Language, PhD dissertation, Universiteit vanAmsterdam.Elorrieta, H. (1991) "The Feature Specification of Uvulars," ms., University of Texas atAustin.Elson, B. (1947) "Sierra Popoluca Syllable Structure," International Journal of AmericanLinguistics 13, 13 - 17.Elson, B. (1956) Sierra Popoluca Morphology. PhD dissertation, Cornell University.Erwin, W. (1963) A Short Reference Geammar of Iraqi Arabic, Georgetown UniversityPress, Washington.Erwin, W. (1969) A Basic Course in Iraqi Arabic , Georgetown University Press,Washington.Fant, G. (1960) An Acoustic Theory of Speech Production, Mouton, The Hague.Ferguson, C. (1956) "The Emphatic /1/ in Arabic," Language 32(3), 446-52.Ferguson, C.(1957) "Two Problems in Arabic Phonology," Word 13, 460-78.Ferguson, C. and Moukhter Ani et. al. (1961) Damascus Arabic, Washington Center forApplied Linguistics, Washington.Fischer, Wolfdietrich and Otto Jastrow (1980) Handbuch der Arabischen Dialekte,Harrassowitz, Weisbaden.Foster, M. L. and G. M. Foster (1948) Sierra Popoluca Speech, U.S. GovermentPrinting Office, Smithsonian Institution, Institute of SocialAnthropology,Washington D.C..Fre Woldu, Kiros (1984/6) "Evidence of Auditory Similarity between Tigrinya Ejective/t'/ and Arabic Emphatic /t/," Orientalia Suecana 33-35, 123-138.384Fudge, E. (1967) "On the Nature of Phonological Primes," Journal of Linguistics 3(1),1-36.Gairdner, W.H.T. (1925) The Phonetics of Arabic, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Gairdner, W.H.T.(1935) "The Arab Phoneticians on the Consonants and Vowels,"Moslem World XXV, 242-257.Gamkrelidze, T. (1966) "A Typology of Common Kartvelian," Language 42, 69-83.Garbell, I. (1958) "Remarks on the Historical Phonology of an East Mediterranean ArabicDialect," Word 14(2/3),303-37.Garbell, I. (1965) The Jewish Neo -Aramaic Dialect of Persian Azerbaijan, LinguisticAnalysis Folkloric Texts, Janua Linguarum, Series Practica, 3.Gary, J. and S. Gamal-Eldin (1982) Cairene Egyptian Colloquial Arabic, North HollandPublishing Co., Amsterdam.Ghali, M.M. (1983) "Pharyngeal Articulation," Bulletin of the School of Oriental andAfrican Studies 46/3, 432 444.Ghazeli, S. (1977) Back Consonants and Backing Coarticulation in Arabic, PhDdissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Giannini, A. & Pettorino, M. (1982) "The Emphatic Consonants in Arabic," SpeechLaboratory Report 4, Instituto Universitario Orientale, Napoli.Gibson, J. (1973) Shuswap Grammatical Structure, PhD dissertation, University ofHawaii. (Distributed as University of Hawaii Working Papers in Linguistics 5.5)Goad, H. (1989) "On the Reature [rtr] in Chilcotin, a Problem for the Feature Heirarchy,"Coyote Papers 9, 20 -31.Goad, H. (1990) "Feature Cooccurrence Constraints, Underspecification and VowelGeometry," Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Linguistics.Goad, H. (1991) "Dependency and Complementarity in Vowel Geometry, on [high],[low] and [air]," ms., University of Southern California.385Goldsmith, J. (1976) Autosegmental Phonology. PhD dissertation, MassachusettsInstitute of Technology.Goldsmith, J. (1990) Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology , Basil Blackwell, Oxford,.Gorecka, A. (1989) Phonology of Articulation, PhD dissertation, MassachusettsInstitute of Technology.Grand'Henry, Jacques (1976) Les Parlers Arabes de la Region du Mzab (SaharaAlgerien), Brill, Leiden.Greenberg, J. H. (1970) Some Generalizations Concerning Glottalic Consonants,Especially Implosives. International Journal of American Linguistics 36, 123 -145.Guerssel, M. (1986) "Glides in Berber and Syllabicity," Linguistic Inquiry 17, 1-12.Haddad, Ghassan F. (1984) "Epenthesis and Sonority in Lebanese Arabic," Studies in theLinguistic Sciences 14, 57 -88.Hagege, Claude (1973) Profil d'un Parler Arabe du Tchad, Paul Geuthner, Paris.Hall, B.L. and R.M.R. Hall (1980) "Nez Perce Vowel Harmony, an AfricanistExplanation and Some Theoretical Questions," in R. Vago (ed.) Issues in VowelHarmony, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.Hall, B.L., R.M.R. Hall, et al. (1974) "African Vowel Harmony Systems from theVantage Point of Kalenjin," Afrika und Ubersee 57, 241-267.Hall, B. and M. Yokwe (1978) "Bali Vowel Harmony, the Evolution of a Cross-HeightVowel Harmony System," Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society9, 285-294.Halle, M. (1989) "The Intrinsic Structure of Speech Sounds," ms., Massachusetts Instituteof Technology.Halle, M. (1992) "Phonological Features," in W. Bright (ed.) International Encyclopediaof Linguistics. Vol 3, 207-211, Oxford University Press, New York and London.386Halle, M. and J.R. Vergnaud (1981) "Harmony Processes," in W. Klein and W. Levelt(eds) Crossing the Boundaries in Linguistics, Studies presented to ManfredBierwish, Reidel, Dordrecht.Harrell, R. (1957) The Phonology of Colloquial Egyptian Arabic, GeorgetownUniversity, Washington, D.C..Harrell, R. (1962) A Short Reference Grammar of Moroccan Arabic, GeorgetownUniversity, Washington, D.C..Harrell, R. (1962) "Consonant, Vowel and Syllable in Moroccan Arabic," Proceedingsof the IVth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Mouton, The Hague.Harrell, R. (1965) A Basic Course in Moroccan Arabic , Georgetown University Press,Washington, D.C..Harris, J. (1990) "Segmental Complexity and Phonological Government," PhonologyYearbook 7,255-300.Harris, Z. (1942) "The Phonemes of Moroccan Arabic," Journal of the AmericanOriental Society 62, 309 - 18.Hassan, A. (1974) The Morphology of Malay, Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, KualaLumpur.Hayes, B. (1986) "Assimilation as Spreading in Toba Batak," Lingusitic Inquiry 17,467-499.Hayward, K. M. (1989) "Comparative Notes on the Language of the S'aamakke,"Journal of Afroasiatic Linguistics 2(1), 1 -53.Hayward, K.M. and R.J. Hayward (1989) "Guttural', Arguments for a New DistinctiveFeature," Transactions of the Philological Society 87(2), 179 - 193.Hayward, K.M., R.J. Hayward and Salim Bakhit Al -Tabuki (1988) "Vowels in JibbaliVerbs," Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 51, 240-250.Heath, J. (1987) Ablaut and Ambiguity. Phonology of a Moroccan Arabic Dialect,State University of New York, Albany.387Heath, J. and M. Bar-Asher (1982) "A Judo-Arabic Dialect of Tafilalt (SoutheasternMorocco)," Zeitschrift fur arabische Linguistik 9, 32-78.Herzallah, R. (1990) Aspects of Palestinian Arabic Phonology, a Non-LinearApproach, PhD dissertation, Cornell University.Hess, S. (1990) "Pharyngeal Articulations in Akan and Arabic," ms., University ofCalifornia at Los Angeles.Hetzron, R. (1969) "Two Notes on Semitic Laryngeals in East Gurage," Phonetica 19,69-81.Hoberman, R. (1985) "The Phonology of Pharyngeals and Pharyngealization in Pre-Modern Aramaic," Journal of the American Oriental Society 105, 221 -231.Hoberman, R. (1987) "Emphasis (Pharyngealization) as an Autosegmental HarmonyFeature," Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 23, 167- 181.Hoberman, Robert (1988) "Emphasis Harmony in Modern Aramaic," Language 64, 1-26.Hoffmann, C. (1973) "The vowel harmony system of the Opke monosyllabic verb,"Research Notes 6, University of Madan.Holes, C. (1990) Gulf Arabic, Routledge, London.Holzknecht, K. (1973) "The Phonemes of the Adzera Language," Pacific Linguistics A38, 1-11.Howell, Mortimer Sloper (1883) A Grammar of the Classical Arabic Language,Allahabad.van der Hulst, H., M. Mous and N. Smith (1986) "The Auto-segmental Analysis ofReduced Vowel Harmony Systems, the Case of Tunen," in Frits Beukema and A.Hulk (eds.) Linguistics in the Netherlands, Foris, Dordrecht.Hume, E. (1992) Front Vowels, Coronal Consonants and their Interaction in NonlinearPhonology, PhD dissertation, Cornell University.Hyman, L. (1970) "The Role of Borrowing in the Justification of PhonologicalGrammars," Studies in African Linguistics 1, 1 -48.388Hyman, L. (1975) Phonological Theory and Analysis, Rinehart, Holt Winston, NewYork.Idsardi, W. J. (1991a) "Stress and Glottalized Sonorants in Shuswap," University ofToronto Working Papers in Linguistics.Idsardi, W. J. (1991b) "Stress in Interior Salish," Proceedings of the Chicago LinguisticSociety 27.International Phonetic Association (1989) "Report to the Kiel Convention," Journal of theInternational Phonetic Association 19(2), 67-80.Irshied, Omar and Michael Kenstowicz (1984) "Some Phonological Rules of BaniHassanArabic, a Bedouin Dialect," Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 14, 109-147.Iverson, G. (1989) "On the Category Supralaryngeal," Phonology Yearbook 6,285-303.Jacobsen, W. H. Jr. (1969) "Origin of the Nootka Pharyngeals," International Journal ofAmerican Linguistics 35(2), 125-153.Jakobson, R. E. (1942) "The Paleosiberian Languages," American Anthropologist 44,602-620.Jakobson, R. (1971) "Notes on Gilyak," in Selected Writings II, Mouton, The Hague.Jakobson, R. (1957) "Mufaxxama, the 'Emphatic' Phonemes in Arabic," in E. Pulgram(ed.) Studies Presented to Joshua Whatrnough on his 60th Birthday, Mouton, TheHague.Jakobson, R., G. Fant and M. Halle (1951) Preliminaries to Speech Analysis, MIT Press,Cambridge, Massachusetts.Jimmie, M. Na2zinek (in preparation) Nielepmxcin (Thompson Salish) Reduplication: AProsodic Morphological Analysis, M.A. Dissertation, University of BritishColumbia.Jimmie, M. Na2zinek and P. A. Shaw (1992) "Out-of-Control Reduplication inNiekepmxcin," paper presented at the 31st Conference on American Languages,SSILA/AAA, San Franscisco.389Johnson, R. (1975) The Role of Phonetic Detail in Coeur d'Alene Phonology, PhDdissertation, Washington State University.Johnstone, T. M. (1963) "The Affrication of 'Ice and 'gal' in Arabic Dialects of theArabian Pensinsula," Journal of Semitic Studies 8, 210-26.Johnstone, T. M. (1967) Eastern Arabic Dialect Studies, Oxford University Press,Oxford.Johnstone, T. M. (1975) "The Modern South Arabian Languages," Afroasiatic Lingustics5, 1-29.Johnstone, T. M. (1981) Jibba:li Lexicon, Oxford University Press, London.Jones, D. (1957) Outline of English Phonetics, Heffer, Cambridge.Kahn, D. (1976) Syllable -Based Generalizations in English Phonology, PhD dissertation,Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (Published 1980, Garland, New York.)Kahn, M. (1975) "Arabic Emphatics, the Evidence for Cultural Determinants of PhoneticSex-Typing,"Phonetica 31, 38-50.Kahn, M. (1976) "How Abstract is Pharyngology: Evidence From Kurmanj,"Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 21, 313 -320.Kaplan, H. (1960) Anatomy and Physiology of Speech, McGraw-Hill, New York.Kaisse, E. (1992) "Can [consonantal] Spread?," Language 68(2),3 13-332.Kaye, J. (1972) "Harmony Processes in Vata," Projet sur les langues Kru, UQAM.Kaye, J., Lowenstamm, J. and R.Vergnaud (1985) "The Internal Structure ofPhonological Elements, a Theory of Charm and Government," PhonologyYearbook 2, 303-326.Keating, P. (1988) "A Survey of Phonological Features," Indiana University LinguisticsClub, Bloomington.Keating, P and A. Lahiri (1991) "Fronted Velars, Palatalized Velars, and Palatals," ms.University of California at Los Angeles and Max-Plank Institute forPsycholinguistics.390Kenstowicz, M. (1979) "Chukchee Vowel Harmony and Epenthesis," Proceedings of theChicago Linguistic Society, 402-412.Kenstowicz, M. and C. Kisseberth (1979) Generative Phonology, Academic Press, NewYork.Kistler, H. (1981) Phonetik and Phonologie des Modernen Hocharabisch, Verlag,Leipzig.Khalafallah, A. (1964) A Descriptive Grammar of SACI:DI Egyptian Colloquial Arabic,Mouton, The Hague.Kingston, J. and J. Nichols (1986) "Pharyngealization in Chechen," paper presented atthe 112 Annual Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America.Kinkade, M.D.(1967) "Uvular-Pharyngeal Resonants in Interior Salish," InternationalJournal of American Linguistics 39,224-231.Kinkade, M.D.(1973) "The Alveopalatal Shift in Cowlitz Salish," International Journalof American Linguistics 39(2), 228-34.Kinkade, M.D. (1981) Dictionary of the Moses-Columbia Language, Washington,Colville Confederated Tribes, Nespelem.Kinkade, M.D. (1990) "Salishan Anti-Sonority," paper presented as Annual Meeting ofthe American Anthropological Society.Kinkade, M.D. and C. Sloat (1972) "Proto-Eastern Interior Salish Vowels," InternationalJournal of American Linguistics 38, 26-48.Kinkade, M.D. and L. C. Thompson (1974) "Proto-Salish *r," International Journal ofAmerican Linguistics 40,v22-28.Kiparsky, P. (1985) "Some Consequences of Lexical Phonology," Phonology Yearbook2, 85-139.Klatt, D. and K. Stevens (1969) "Pharyngeal Consonants," MIT Research Laboratory ofElectronics Quarterly Progress Report 93, 208-216.391Krauss, M. (1979) "Na-Dene and Eskimo-Aleut," in Campbell and Mithun (eds.) TheLanguages of Native America.Krause, S.R. (1980) Topics in Chukchee Phonology and Morphology, PhD dissertation,University of Illinois.Kuipers, A. H. (1960) "Caucasian," in T. Sebeok (ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics IMouton, The Hague.Kuipers, A. H. (1974) The Shuswap Language, Mouton, The Hague.Kuipers, A. H. (1981) "On Reconstructing the Proto-Salish Sound System,"International Journal of American Linguistics 47, 323 -35.Kuipers, A. H. (1989) A Report on Shuswap with a Squamish Lexical Appendix,Peeters/SELAF, Paris.Kuriyagawa, F. (1964) "The Features of /k/ and /q/ in Cairo Standard Arabic," AnnualBulletin of the Research Institute of Logopedics and Phoniatrics 18, 65 -73.Kuriyagawa, F. et al. (1986) "An Electromyographic Study of the Emphatic Consonantsin Standard Jordanian Arabic," Annual Bulletin of the Research Institute ofLogopedics and Phoniatrics 20, 23 -31.Ladefoged, P. (1964) A Phonetic Study of West African Languages, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.Ladefoged, P. (1971) Preliminaries to Linguistic Phonetics, University ofChicago Press, Chicago.Ladefoged, P. (1972, 1982) A Course in Phonetics, Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich,New York.Ladefoged, P. (1983a) "Cross-Linguistic Studies of Speech Production," in P.MacNeilage (ed.) The Production of Speech, Springer-Verlag, New York.Ladefoged, P. (1983b) "The Linguistic Use of Different Phonation Types," in D. Blessand J. Abbs (eds.)Vocal Fold Physiology, College Hill Press, San Diego.Ladefogeod, P. and M. Halle (1988) "Some Major Features of the International PhoneticAlphabet," Language 64,477-82.392Ladefoged, P. and I. Maddieson (1988) "Phonological Features for Places ofArticulation," in L. Hyman and C. Li (eds.) Language, Speech and Mind,Routledge, London.Ladefoged, P. and I. Maddieson (1990) "Vowels of the World's Languages," Journal ofPhonetics 18, 93-122.Ladefoged, P. , I. Maddison and M. Jackson (1988) "Investigating Phonation Types inDifferent Languages," in 0. Fujimura (ed)Vocal Physiology, Voice Production,Mechanisms and Functions, Raven Press, New York.Lass, R. (1976) On the Phonological Characterization of [2] and [h], in R. Lass (ed.)English phonology and phonological theory, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.Lass, R. (1984) Phonology, an Introduction to Basic Concepts, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.Latimer, R. M. (1978) A Study of Chilcotin Phonology, MA dissertation, University ofCalgary.Laufer, Asher and I.D. Condax (1979) "The Epiglottis as an Articulator," Journal of theInternational Phonetic Association 9, 50-56.Laufer, Asher and I.D. Condax (1981) "The Role of the Dpiglottis in Speech," Languageand Speech 24, 39-62.Laufer, A. and T. Baer (1988) "The Emphatic and Pharyngeal Sounds in Hebrew and inArabic," Status Report on Speech Research 95/96, Haskins Laboratories.Laver, J. (1980) The Phonetic Description of Voice Quality, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.Leben, W. (1973) Suprasegmental Phonology, PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Instituteof Technology.Lehn, W. (1967) "Emphasis in Cairo Arabic," Language 39(1), 29-39.Lehn, W. (1967b) "Vowel contrasts in Najdi Arabic," in D. Stuart (ed.) Linguistic Studiesin Memory of Richard Slack Harrell, Georgetown University Press, Washington.393Lehn, W. and P. Abboud (1965) Beginning Cairo Arabic, Middle East Centre, Austin.Levine, R. (1981) "Review of Haida Dictionary," International Journal of AmericanLinguistics 47, 354-358.Lincoln, N. and J. Rath (1986) Phonology, Dictionary and Listing of Roots and LexicalDerivatives of the Haisla Language of Kitlope and Kitimaat, B.C. CanadianEthnology Service paper No. 103, National Museums of Canada, Ottawa.Lindau, M (1978) "Vowel Features," Language 54(3), 541-563.Lindau, M (1979) "The Feature Expanded," Journal of Phonetics 7, 163-176.Lindblom, B. and J. Sundberg (1971) "Acoustical Consequences of Lip, Tongue, Jaw andLarynx Movement," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 50(4/2), 1166-1179.Lindqvist, J. (1969) "Laryngeal Mechanisms in Speech," STL-QPSR 2-3, 26 ff.Lombardi, L (1990) "The Non-Linear Organization of the Affricate," Natural Languageand Linguistic Inquiry 8, 375-425.Lombardi, L (1991) Laryngeal Features and Laryngeal Neutralization, PhD dissertation,University of Massachusetts.Lowenstamm, J. and J. Kaye (1986) "Compensatory Lengthening in Tiberian Hebrew," inL. Wetzels and E. Sezer (eds.), Studies in Compensatory Lengthening, Foris,Dordrecht.Lowenstamm, J. and J-F. Prunet (1985) "Tigre Harmonies," paper presented at the 16thConference on African Linguistics, Yale Univeristy.Lowenstamm, J. and J-F. Prunet (1987) "Pseudo-harmony in Tigre," paper presented atthe 18th Conference on African Linguistics, UQAM.Lowenstamm, J. and J-F. Prunet (1988) "Tigre Vowel Harmonies," Rapport du Groupe deRecherche en Linguistique Africaniste, UQAM.Maamouri, Mohamed (1967) The Phonology of Tunisian Arabic, PhD dissertation,Cornell University.394Maddieson, I. (1984) Patterns of Sounds, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Maclean, E. A. (1986) North Slope I fiupiaq Grammar, First Year, Alaska NativeLanguage Centre, Fairbanks.Malmburg, B. (1963) Phonetics , Dover, New York.Malone, J. (1978) "Heavy Segments' vs. the Paradoxes of Segment Length, theEvidence of Tiberian Hebrew," Linguistics special issue 119-158.Malone, J. (1984) "Tiberian Hebrew Phonology," ms. Barnard College.Margais, P. (1948) "L'Articulation de l'Emphases dans un Parler Arabe Maghrebin,"Annales de l'Institut d'Etudes Orientales, Facult6 des Lettres de l'Universit6d'Alger, 7.Matisoff, J. (1973) The Grammar of Lahu, University of California Press, Berkeley.Mattina, A. (1973) Colville Grammatical Structure, PhD dissertation, University ofHawaii. (Distributed as University of Hawaii Working Papers in Linguistics 5.4)Mattina, A. (1979) "Pharyngeal Movement in Colville and Related Phenomena in theInterior Salishan Languages," International Journal of American Linguistics45, 17-24.Mattina, A. (1987) Colville-Okanagan Dictionary, University of Montana OccasionalPapers in Linguistics No.5, Missoula.Mayes, S. (1979) "An Acoustic Analysis of Thomspon Velar /k/ and Uvular /q/,"Univeristy of Hawaii Working Papers in Linguistics 11(1), 11-22.McCarthy, J. (1981) "OCP effects, Gemination and Anti-Gemination," Linguistic Inquiry17, 207-63.McCarthy, J. (1988) "Feature Geometry and Dependency, a Review," Phonetica 43, 84-108.395McCarthy, J. (1989) "Guttural Phonology," ms., University of Massachusetts.McCarthy, J. (1991) "The phonology of Semitic gutturals," ms., University ofMassachusetts.McCarthy, R. and F. Raffouli (1964) Spoken Arabic of Baghdad, LibraireOrientale, Beirut.McCarus, E. and A. Yacoub (1962) Elements of Contemporary Arabic, Ann ArborPublishers, Ann Arbor,.Merlingen, W. (1977) Artikulation und Phonematik des H, Verband derwissenschaftlichen Gesellschaften Osterreichs, Vienna.Mester, R. A. (1986) Studies in Tier Structures, PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Instituteof Technology.Mester, A. and J. Ito (1989) "Feature Predictability and Underspecification, PalatalProsody and Japanese Mimetics," Language 65(2), 258-293.Mitchell, T. (1956) An Introduction to Egyptian Colloquial Arabic, OxfordUniversity Press, London.Mitchell, T. (1960) "Prominence and Syllabification in Arabic," Bulletin of the School ofOriental and African Studies 23(2), 369-89.Mithun, M. and H. Basri (1986) "The Phonology of Selayerese," Oceanic Linguistics25,210-54.Morag, S. (1972) "The Pronunciation of Hebrew," Encyclopedia Judaica 13, 1120-1145.Morse, R. (1963) "Phonology of Rawang," Anthropological Lingusitics 5(5), 17-41.Nasr, R.T. (1959) "Velarization in Lebanese Arabic," Phonetica 3, 203-209.Negus, V.E. (1949) The Comparative Anatomy and Physiology of the Larynx,Heinemann, London.Nordstom, P.-E. (1977) "Female and Infant Vocal Tracts Simulated from Male AreaFunctions," Journal of Phonetics 5, 81-92.396Norlin, K. (1987) "A Phonetic Study of Emphasis and Vowels in Cairo Arabic," LundUniversity Department of Linguistics Working Papers 30, Lund.Obrecht, D. (1968) Effects of the Second Formant on the Perception of VelarizedConsonants in Arabic, Mouton, The Hague.O'Connor, J.D. (1973) Phonetics, Penguin, Harmondsworth.Odden, D. (1988) "Anti-Antigemination and the OCP," Linguistic Inquiry 19, 451-75.Ohala, J. (1983) "Cross-Language Use of Pitch, an Ethological View," Phonetica 40, 1-18.Ohala, J. (1990) "The Generality of Articulatory Binding," in J. Kingston and M.Beckman (eds.) Papers in Laboratory Phonology I, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.O'Leary, de Lacy (1923) Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages, Kegan Paul,London.Olson, R. (1967) "The Syllable in Chipaya," International Journal of AmericanLinguistics 33, 300-304.Onn (1976, 1980) Aspects of Malay Phonology and Morphology, UniversitiKebangsean Malaysia, Kuala Lumpor.Padgett, J. (1991) Stricture in Feature Geometry, PhD dissertation, University ofMassachusetts.Painter, C. (1973) "Cineradiographic Data on the Feature 'Covered' in Twi," Phonetica28, 97-120.Palmer, F. (1956)" Openness in Tigre: a Problem in Prosodic Statement," Bulletin of theSchool of Oriental and African Studies 18, 561 -77.Palva, H. (1984/6) "Characteristics of the Arabic Dialect of the Hwetat tribe," OrientaliaSuecana 34/35, 295-312.Paradis, C. and J-F. Prunet (1989) "On Coronal Transparency," Phonology Yearbook6, 317-348.397Paradis, C. and J-F. Prunet (eds.) (1991) The Special Status of Coronals, Internal andExternal Evidence, Academic Press, New York.Payne, D. (1981) The Phonology and Morphology of Axininca Campa, Summer Instituteof Linguistics, Arlington, Texas.Perkell, J.S. (1971) "Physiology of Speech Production, a Preliminary Study of TwoSuggested Revisions of the Features Specifying Vowels," MIT ResearchLaboratory in Electronics Quarterly Progress Report 102, 123- 139.Petracek, K. (1952) "Zur Artikulation des Sogenannten Emphatischen 1 im Arabischen,"Archiv Orientóln120,509-23.Peuch, Gilbert (1978) "A Cross -Dialectal Study of Vowel Harmony in Maltese,"Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 14, 377 -389.Piggott, G. (1971) "Some Implications of Algonquian Palatalization," in J. Kaye, G.Piggot and K. Tokaichi (eds.) Odawa Language Project, First Report,Anthropological Series 9, University of Toronto, Department of Anthropology.Piggott, G. (1987) "On the Autonomy of the Feature Nasal," Proceedings of the ChicagoLinguistic Society 23, 223 -238.Piggott, G. (1992) "Variability in Feature Dependency, the Case of Nasality," NaturalLanguage and Linguistic Inquiry 10, 33 -77.Pike, K. (1943) Phonetics, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.Pike, K. (1967) "Tongue-Root Position in Practical Phonetics," Phonetica 17,129-140.Plotkin, W. (1964) "Ventricular Phonation, a Clinical Discussion of Etiology, Symptomsand Therapy," American Speech and Hearing Association Convention Abstracts6,409.Polotsky, H.J. (1961) "Studies in Modern Syriac," Journal of Semitic Studies 6, 1-32.Press, M. (1979) Chemehuevi: a Grammar and Lexicon, University of California Press,Berkeley.Prince, Alan (1975) The Phonology and Morphology of Tiberian Hebrew, PhDdissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.398Prochazka, T. (1988) Saudi Arabian Dialects, Kegan Paul, London.Prunet, J.-F. (1990) "The Origin and Interpretation of French Loan Words in Carrier,"International Journal of American Linguistics 56,484 -502.Pulleyblank, E. (1989) "The Role of Coronal in Articulator Based Features,"Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 25, 379 -393.Pulleyblank, E. (1992) "Pharyngeal Glide," ms., University of British Columbia.Rabin, Ch. M. (1972) "Semitic Languages," Encyclopedia Judaica 14, 1149-1157.Raz, S. (1983) Tigre Grammar and Texts, Afroasiatic Dialects 4, Undena Publications,California.Reichard, G. (1938) "Coeur d'Alene," in F. Boas (ed.) Handbook of the American IndianLanguages, 3. Hamburg, J. Augustin.Reichard, G. (1939) "Stem-List of the Coeur d'Alene Language," International Journal ofAmerican Linguistics 10, 92- 108.Reichard, G. (1958) "A Comparison of Five Salish Languages I," International Journalof American Linguistics 24,293-300.Remnant, D. (1990) Tongue Root Articulations, a Case-Study of Lillooet, M.A.dissertation, Universiity of British Columbia.Rice, K. (1991) "Default Variability," ms., University of Toronto.Rice, K. and P. Avery (1991) "On the Relationship Between Coronality and Laterality,"in Paradis and Prunet (eds.),The Special Status of Coronals.Rose, S.M. (1981) Kyuquot Grammar, PhD dissertation, University of Victoria.Ruhlen, M. (1975) A Guide to the Languages of the World, Stanford University LanguageUniversals Project, Stanford.Sagey, E. (1986) The Representation of Features and Relations in Non -LinearPhonology, PhD Dissertation, Massachussets Institute of Technology.399Sagey, E. (1988) "Place Feature Geometry," Proceedings of the North Eastern LinguisticSociety 18.Sapir, E. (1911) "Some Aspects of Nootka Language and Culture," AmericanAnthropologist 13, 15-28.Sapir, E. (1923) "The Phonetics of Haida," International Journal of AmericanLingusitics 2, 143-58.Sapir, E. (1938) "Glottalized Continuants in Navaho, Nootka and Kwakiutl," Language14,248-274.Sapir, E. and M. Swadesh (1939) N ootka Texts, Linguistic Society of America,Philadelphia.Sasse, H.-J. (1973) "Spuren von Pharyngalen im Galeb," Afrika und Ubersee 56, 266-75.Sasse, H.-J. (1979) "The Consonant Phonemes of Proto-East-Cushitic (PEC), a FirstApproximation," Afroasiatic Linguistics 7, 1-67.Sawashima, M. and H. Hirose (1983) "Laryngeal Gestures in Speech Production," in P.MacNeilage (ed.) The Production of Speech, Springer-Verlag, New York.Selkirk, E. (1982) "The Syllable," in H. van der Hulst and N. Smith (eds.) The Structureof Phonological Representations Part 2, Foris, Dordrecht.Semaan, Khalil (1963) Arabic Phonetics, S. Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore.Semaan, Khalil I. (1968) Linguistics in the Middle Ages, Phonetic Studies in Early Islam,Brill, Leiden.Shane, S. (1973) Generative Phonology, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.Shaw, P. (1980) Theoretical Issues in Dakota Phonology and Morphology, Garland, NewYork.Shaw, P. (1987) "The Non-Conservation of Melodic Structure in Reduplication,"Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 23, 291-306.400Shaw, P. (1989a) "The Complex Status of Complex Segments in Dakota," in D. Gerdtsand K. Michelson (eds.), Theoretical perspectives on Native AmericanLanguages, SUNY Press, Albany.Shaw, P. (1989b) "On the Phonological Representation of Laterals and Affricates," ms.,University of British Columbia.Shaw, P. (1991a) "Consonant Harmony Systems, the Special Status of CoronalHarmony," in C. Paradis and J-F. Prunet (eds.) The Special Status of Coronals.Shaw, P. (1991b) "The Laryngeal/Post-Velar Connection," paper given at the Conferenceon Phonological Feature Organization, LSA Summer Linguistic Institute,University of Santa Cruz.Shuken, C. (1984) "[2], [h] in Parametric Phonetics," in J. Higgs and R. Thelwall (eds.)Topics in Linguistic Phonetics, The New University of Ulster, Ulster.Sloat, C. (1966) Phonological Redundancy Rules in Coeur d'Alene, PhD Dissertation,University of Washington.Sloat, C. (1975) "Vowel Harmony in Coeur d'Alene,"International Journal of AmericanLinguistics 38, 234-239.Sloat, C. (1980) "Vowel Alternations in Coeur d'Alene," International Journal ofAmerican Linguistics 46, 14-20.Sobelman, H. (ed.) (1962) Arabic Dialect Studies, Center for Applied Linguistics ofthe Modern Language Association and The Middle East Institute, Washington.Speck, B. (1980) An Edition of Father Post's Kalispel Grammar, University of MontanaOccasional Papers in Linguistics 1, Missoula.Steriade, D. (1987) "Locality Conditions and Feature Geometry," Proceedings of theNorth Eastern Linguistic Society 17, 595-617.Stevens, K. (1988) "Modes of Vocal Fold Vibration Based on a Two-Section Model," in0. Fujimura (ed.) Vocal Physiology, Voice Production, Mechanisms andFunctions, Raven Press, New York.Stevens, K and S. Blumstein (1975) "Quantal Aspects of Consonant Production andPerception, a Study of Retroflex Stop Consonants," Journal of Phonetics 3, 215-333.401Stevens, K. and A. House (1955) "Development of a Quantitative Description of VowelArticulation," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 27(3), 484-493.Stevens, K. and J. Keyser (1989) "Primary Features and Their Enhancement inConsonants," Language 65, 81-107.Stewart, J.M. (1967) "Tongue Root Position in Akan Vowel Harmony," Phonetica 16(2),233-269.Stewart, J.M. (1971) "Niger-Congo, Kwa," in T. Sebeok (ed.) Linguistics in Sub-SaharanAfrica, Current Trends in Linguistics 7, Mouton, The Hague.Stonham, J. (1990) Current Issues in Morphological Theory, PhD Dissertation,Stanford.Straight, H. (1976) The Acquisition of Maya Phonology, Garland, New York.Sutcliffe, E. F. (1966) A Grammar of the Maltese Language. Valletta.Swadesh, M. (1939) "Nootka Internal Syntax," International Journal of AmericanLinguistics 9,77-102.Talmoundi, F. (1980) The Arabic Dialect of Susa (Tunisia), Acta UniversitatisGothoburgensis.Tarpent, M-L. (1983) "Motphonemics of Nisgha Plural Formation, a Step Towards Proto-Tsimshian Reconstruction," Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 8(2), 123-214.Tament, M-L. (1987) A Grammar of the Nisgha Language, PhD dissertation, Universityof Victoria.Teoh, Boon Seong (1988) Aspects of Malay Phonology Revisited—a Non-LinearApproach, PhD dissertation, University of Illinois.Thompson, L. C. (1979) "Salishan and the Northwest," in L. Campbell and M. Mithun(eds.) The Languages of Native America, University of Texas Press, Austin.Thompson, L. C. and M. T. Thompson (1990) Thompson Dictionary, ms., University ofHawaii.402Thompson, L. C. and M. T. Thompson (1992) The Thompson Language, University ofMontana Occasional Papers in Linguistics No. 8, Missoula.Thrainssom, H. (1978) "On the Phonology of Icelandic Preaspiration," Nordic Journalof Linguistics 1, 3-54.Train, A. (1985) Phonetic and Phonological Studies of !X(56, Buske, Hamburg.Trigo, L (1988) On the Phonological Derivation and Behavior of Glides, PhDDissertation, Massachussets Institute of Technology.Trubetzkoy, N. (1969) Principles of Phonology, UCLA Press, Berkeley.Tsereteli, K. (1982) "On One Suprasegmental Phoneme in Modern Semitic," Journal ofthe American Oriental Society 7, 343-346.Tsiapera, Maria (1969) A Descriptive Analysis of Cypriot Maronite Arabic, Mouton, TheHague.Tucker, A.N. and M.A. Bryan (1956) The Non -Bantu Languages of North -EasternAfrica, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Ullendorf, E. (1955) The Semitic Languages of Ethiopia, Taylor's (Foreign) Press,London.Vogt, H. (1940) The Kalispel Language, Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo, Oslo.Vollers, K. (1893) "The System of Arabic Sounds as Based on Sibaweih and Ibn Ya1sh,"Transactions of the Ninth International Congress of Orientalists Vol. II, 130- 154.Wares, A. C. (1968) A Comparative Study of Yuman Consonantism, The Hague,Mouton.Walsh, L. (1990) "Syllable Structure in Interior Tsimshianic," ms., University of BritishColumbia.Welmers, W.E. (1973) African Language Structures, UCLA Press, Berkeley.403Westerman, D. and M. Bryan (1952) Languages of West Africa, Oxford University Press,Oxford.Wheeler, A. and M. Wheeler (1962) "Siona Phonemics (Western Tucanoan)," in B.Elson (ed.) Studies in Ecuadorean Indian Languages I, Summer Institute ofLinguistics, Norman.Wood, S. (1979) "A Radiographic Analysis of Constriction Location for Vowels,"Journal of Phonetics 7,25-43.Wright, W. (1966) Lectures on the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages,Philo Press, Amsterdam.Yip, M. (1983) "Some Problems of Syllable Structure in Axininca Campa," Proceedingsof the North Eastern Lingusitic Society 13, 243-251.Yip, M. (1989) "Feature Geometry and Co-occurrence Restrictions," PhonologyYearbook 6, 349-374.Younes, M. (1982 ) Problems in the Segmental Phonology of Palestinian ArabicPhD Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.404Appendix A: Interior Salish Inventories405Velar Uvular Pharyngeal Glottalkwkewq qwq' q'w?xwww'X Xwcc V C'whSpokane (Carlson 1972)Labial Coronalp^t^c^6p'^t'^c' X' 6's im^n^r 1 >7m'^n'^r' ii y,Vowels: /i, e, u/Kalispel (Vogt 1940)Labial Coronalp^t^cp' t' c' X's 4.m n 1m' n' 1'Vowels: /i, e, u/Velar Uvular^Pharyngeal Glottal6^kw^q qw ?6'^k'w^q' q'wxw^x Xw^ hy^w C Swy'^w' 1' T'wVelar Uvular Pharyngeal Glottalkwgwk'wq qwq' q'w?xwww'X XwS TwC' f'whCoeur d'Alene (Reichard 1938)Labial Coronal13^t^c^6b d jp'^t'^c'^6's^I s§m^n^r 1 Ym'^n'^r' 1'^y'Vowels: /ii, i29 29 IliVelar Uvular Pharyngeal Glottalk kw q qw ?k' k'w q'^q'wxYxwwX Xw 55whY, w' 5 ^C'wColville (Mattina 1973))Labial Coronalp^t^cp'^t'^c' X's Im^n^r 1m'^n'^r' 1'Vowels: /i, a, u/Lillooet (van Eijk 1985)Labial Coronal^Velar^Uvular^Pharyngeal Glottalp^t^c k^kw^q qw ?p'^t'^c'^k'^k'w^q' q'ws f x^xw^X Xw^ hm^n^z 1 Y^y^w T Swm'^n'^z' 1' y' y' w' C' T'wVowels: /i, u, atShuswap (Kuipers 1974)Labial Coronal^Velar^Uvular^Pharyngeal GlottalP^t^c^k^kw^q qw 2p'^t'^c' X' k'^k'w^q' q'ws 1 x^xw^X Xw^ hm^n^Y 1 Y^w C Swm^n'^y' 1' y' w' S' C'wVowels: /i, e, u/Nfe?kepmxcin (Thompson and Thompson 1992)Labial Coronal^VelarP^t (c)c k kwc'^X'^k' k'w(s) s f x xwm^n z ylm'^fl^z' y' V^‘67'Vowels: /i, e, u, a/Columbian (Kinkade 1981)Lab Coronal^C^Velarp^t^c ç^k kwP'^c'S I^x xwin^n r 1 y^1^wm'^n' r' l' y'^1' w'Uvularq qWq'WX XWUvularqWq q'WX XWPharyngeal GlottalS'wPhar^Glottal2h hwççwS'wVowels: /i, a, u, a/406Appendix B: Interior Salish SpectrogramsKey to spectrogramsForm^Gloss^Points of interestNfekepmxcin: David Shooter1. cIaph^'ripped'2. lexksth 'fingers'3. s2isthkh^'winter'4. c?aqh 'tame'5. cOcEP^'sister'phthth, khqh2hNisgha: Bertha Azak (Data courtesy of Linda Walsh)6. mtso? 3^'sockeye salmon'^2 ° (echo vowel)Colville: Charlie Quintasket7. silkst^'five'^th8. mnik 'excrement'^kh ; man...9. piq^'white' qh; jig10. sfiq 'meat'^qh; ifq11. cixcixt^'very hot' i/X12. suq'wt 'floating'^u/q'w13. slaqs^'mosquito' a/q14. qilcx 'running'^q15.xaIxal^'crow' a/c; I16 xwuyt ciyalp^'They have arrived' a/c; c17 snlas^'snot'^I18. {fat 'wet' I; th19. WM?^'raspberry'^s; 2h20. kn k'aT'wn^'praying' a/c"; s.,,,,,,21. k'afm (Ok)^'praying'^a/c; I; dialectal variation between Colvilleand Okanagan22. q'wySas^'black person'^Pharyngeal Movement23. q'wyos (Ok)^'black person' Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony; dialectalvariation between Colville and OkanaganSpokane: Pauline Flett24. kwri?^'yellow'^2h; no transitions due to 12/25. ?Au? 'cough, have a cold' 2h; no transitions from glottals26. xaTa^'blow like a little wind'^s, a/-c27. p'aSp 'it burned'^I; ph28. niT'ap^'still, yet' ,29. 6aCw 'pray; ask for help'^fw30. X'aIwt^'muddy'^SW; th31. calwf§ 'he bathed' fw32. maTwn^'I broke it'^Sw40747. sacimalcfSn48. ?sdElim49. 'sdalamalqw50. s6int51. t'apsUnt52. Mjnc53. ni?ldjelqsnc'leg''he's galloping''train''person''shoot (s.o.)''he stabbed it''he stabbed her nose'54. k'ul'enctitn^'Creator'55. np'p'tosenc3t^'he dreamed'Coeur d'Alene:32. ?elup33. sp'ert34. taxt35. slaq36. up &I37. snine?38. uctor39. sqweTwSw40. s66eTwm41. ME Vwns42. Twusn43 ciIt44. ceSce'§qn45. cesdliqw46. stegmelpsLawrence Nicodemus'it is dried''flood''bitter'servicebeny''white''owl''it is sour'hPth; rth; x; a/-xqh; q; ak.qqh; q; Et_q2hr; o/ -r'drunk'^TwCw'drunkard' Sw'he broke it'^C'w'I lost it' #Sw'long'^Non-harmony fig-vowel'he has long hair'^fig > [e] Regressive Faucal Harmony'he's tall'^fig > [E] Regressive Faucal Harmony'surface of back of neck'Non-harmony /e/-vowel/E/ > [a] Regressive Faucal HarmonyNon-harmony /ii/-vowel/ii/ > [a] Regressive Faucal HarmonyNon-harmony /i7]-vowelfig > [e] Progressive Pharyngeal HarmonyNon-harmony /e/-vowel/e/ > [a] Progressive Pharyngeal HarmonyNon-harmony /u/ vowel/u!> [o] Progressive Pharyngeal Harmony4086000500040003000200010000.1 0.70.600^0.10.2 0.3 0.4 0.50.6^0.70.4^0.5ds121.d1. cSaph 'ripped'60005000 -^4-^4-4000-^d-3000 -^-F^-F2000^-F^d-1 o o o -^-I-^d-o o^0.1^0.229480—^I^114740--14740-0.3^0.4^0.5^0.6^0.7^0.8^0.9^1.0^1.10.0^0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5^0.6^0.7^0.8^0.9^1.0^1.1ds22.d2. lExksth^'fingers'0.1 0.20.9 1.061370-613700 0.1^0.2 0.3^0.40.90.5^0.6^0.7fool.d1.00.83. Oisthkh Winter10356-10356-0 0^0.1 0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5^0.6^0.7ds115.d4. eiaqh^'tame'0 0^0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5^0.6^0.7^0.85. cocoh ,si s ter ,10964 -,,t. 0 0^0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5^0.6^0.7^0.8ds125.d-10964 ^,,,i,„.i,,,,t,...16000 150001,0,,^-I- --0^40003000200010000.3^0.4^0.5^0.61,^I I^.^1^. 0.7 0.81100013634 ---68177--6817-13634 . .^ . „0 0^0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4Ina6.d^0.5.^1^....^10.6^0.7 0.86. mt.s7 0^'sockeye salmon'600050004000--f-3000 L-200010000 ^ I .00 0.114376 0.5^ 0.6^ 0.7^ 0.0^ 0.97188-44*44404m-718800 0.1 0.20.6^ 0.7 0.8.3^ 0.4^ 0.5cql .d0.97. silks 'five'0 0 0.5^0.6^0.70.1^0.2^0.3 0.4oq86.d 8. mnik 'excrement'0.6^0.70 0.41ftt4882.7-6000--H,-+-^ -Hfii'!°1111111111'^(I^fflt;ifit'till'"24410 -1-4*44124-2441-5000 H4000H30002000—1000Hl it.j60005000 —4000•111111"^•3000 --2000 —1000,-47010.1 0.3 G.5c935.d9. piq 'white'10. sliq^'meat'0.4 0.5oq39.d, 0.910.6^0.7^0.8'very hot'11. cixcixt4987—10.3^...00404.^.^,0.1 0.20.06000 -,-,-,5U00-4000.-.-173000-Or, -I--1000:- I11 zI flit $1.•,1•^-0.0^ 0.1^ 0.290020.0 0.1^ 0.2 0.3^ 0.4cq49.d0.512. suq'wt 'floating'0.1^0.2^0.30 0105760.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.95288—0 -41.4.•-40440014.414004,404-F-='"--• )1;11P".,,p,4,9.0mv,,,H.1111,"^-41114190000*.4.444404441.404,014010441114004014kpow ^-5288---i,^1 ,^. ^ I^.1^__0 0^0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5 0.6 0.7^0.8^0.9cq51.d13. slags^'mosquito'600050004000H300020E0---+-1 ntil ltItti I 0.50.047680.2 0.3^0.42384I'-23840,0^ 0.1^0.2^ 0.3^9.4^ 0.5^0.6cq110.d14. qilcx^'running'.0.91 ^.....^I^.0.7^0.80 0^. I .0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5^0.6cq61.d0 ^■ .^.0 0 0.196324916,0.2^0.3 .4..1^,..1,.,.1,:..1..,.1^...,^1....1....1....1,...1:0.5^0.6^0.7 0.8^0.9-491615. xaCxaT^'crow'11'1IP°Hd I1111111=1121Aliiiiimmoma3840—-38400 0^0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5^0.6^0.7cq79.d 0.8 0.9^1.0^1.116. xwuyt ciykp 'They have arrived'6000500040003000200010000'^0010,0^lihio^101 i , 001;000 ,;,,hi.^i^i'^1^,^il^i ill,^ili1111111(t'i111111;;;i1:1'111 i":111■11'1i 1^1"^oliqq,^ihit, '1^tilqi dio Jo , :„1114Pl'" ififftro'FA 1 ,iliti01401111111illiffilildlItillillii il 'II'^ :filillii:filfI,Milliligel_0.1^0.26576-.0.6„. 0.7^0.8^0.9328801#10(Wowoolle•90•0100•14004•144imr.^-3288—00 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7cq83.d 0.90.8snTas 'snot'-3736 —0 0 0.1^ 0.20.718. +Cat0.3^ 0.4^ 0.5^ 0.6cq93.d'wet'600050004000300020001000I I^" 00.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7005584 —2792—-2792-I 0 0^0.1^0.2^0.3^0^ 0.5^0.6^0.7oq96.d19. fkla? 'raspberry'10 00-00 0.1 0.70.60.2 0.50.40.3 1.00.90.8'11,111, I 11,111'^"0.6^0.7^0.80.40.30.20.100 0.9^1.00.5cq63.d-+-'uliiI' ihI t^ii( siii11'^1I6000_5000-400030007--2000866043300-4330"^'''''^I^'20. kn leaVvvn^'praying'I^11^111i1^gII- ,^01,4100 0^0.1^0.27868cq67.d21. learn (Ok)^'praying'0.2^0.3^0. 0.5^0.6^0.7cq137.d 0.8^0.922. q'wyCas^'black person'cq139.d23. q'wyos (Ok) 'black person'6000500040003000200010 000 00^0.1142487124-71240.2^0.3^0.4^0.5^0.6^0.7^0.8^0.9^.. ^.1.^.1^.t^.1^.... .............^...i^...1^...,^...I^...t...1...... '0 0 ^0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5^0.6^0.7 0.8^0.9pf76.d24. kwri?^'yellow'6000500040003000200010000.310.90.80.20.1 0.70.50.4 0.60016592—8296-829600.^I^.^..^.1^I.^1.1^1^I^1^I^1^1^t.l.^I.^.1^..0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5^0.6^0.7^0.8^0.9rt90.d25. ?dhu? 'cough, have a cold'0.7^0.80 0^0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5^0.6I^'^l'"'''"'I"'''"1""' ^'I^' '^'I^I^'I60005000-4000-3000-2000-1000 -+-5396--53960 0^0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5^0.6^0.7^0.8pf2.d26. xaTa^'blow like a little wind'1000- +-60005000-4000-30002000-^ ,^, ^ I0 0^0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5^0.6^0.7^0.8^0.9^1.0^1.11795289760-897600 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5^0.6pf48.d0.7 0.8 0.927. p‘afp^'it burned'28. niT'ap^'still, yet'500060004000300020001000o00^0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5^2.6^0.7^0.8^0.917210-," ,^I I I I I I -8605 --8605 -0 0^0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.^2.^0.7^0.8^0.9pf56.d29. 6aTw^'pray; ask for help'0.0^0.1^0.2^0.3182080.0^0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4 0.5^0.6^0.7^0.8^0.9^1.0^1.1pf62.d30. 1,1aCwC. 'muddy'31. eawl's"^'he bathed'8584--85840 0^0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5^0.6^0.7pf67.d32. maiwn^'I broke it'4i[tUkOt^%it32. 7ellip 'it is dried'33. sp'ert 'flood'0.018100 0.3 0.4_-_ 1 i I i 19350 :---- --9350-0.0^0.1^0.2 0.3^0.4^0.5^0.6^0.7^0.81n59 .d34. taxt 'bitter'-_35. slag •^'serviceberry'6000I^'^'5000-3000— Lit2000,Hf0015080 0.6^0.7^0.8^0.9I7540^14044414110%.*******.i...r--75400 0^0.1^0.2^0.336. upeq0.4^0.5^0.6^0.7^0.8^0.91n67.d'white'50007,4000—3000--2000:—0 0^ 0.1^ 0.22493600^ 0.1^ 0.2^ 0.31.0.^1^,^,^1 .^1^.^I 1 0.4 0.5^ 0.6^ 0.7^ 0.81n12.d37. sninc? 'owl'6000_50001-40001-3000-2000- -+-1000:-I.^I^I^'"!^.0.0 0.119508—_0.3 0.4^0.511.0 1.1975414-----041111444.^--9754 I-0 0.^I^.^.^.^I^.........^I0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4^0.5^0.61n55.d... .. . .^I . .^.^.^.0.7^0.8^0.9^1.0 1.138. uc'or 'it is sour'o ^„^I 0 0 0.1 0.2^0.3120640.4 0.50.9^1.01n44 .d39. sqwcwiw^'drunk'50004000:-3000 L-2000E--0.70.6I .0 0^0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5168528426 —---8426I0 0^0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5^0.61n49.d600010.9^1.00.7^0.840. sneTwm^'drunkard'r 1141. menvns^'he broke it'1l•i,i I ii II il1^1^, , , cr,,,,i11.1.1, 1I i ii I42. Twusri 'I lost it'0.4^0.5^0.6^0.7^0.8^0.90.0^0.1^0.223924=70.2^.3^0.4^0.510116.d43 cis§t 'long'0.9^1.00.811444-11444000.9^1.00.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5^0.6^0.7^0.86000,r+-0.5^0.6^0.75000:—400073--3000—2000:—1000 -0 ^.0 022888,1n120.d,0.2^0.3^0.40. 145. ceKcil'qw^'he's tall'2288811444o-11w—^.^.^.^.^1^.....^1 ^0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3^0.4^0.5^0.6^0.7^0.8^0.9^1.0^1.11n11803■44. cace§oin^'he has long hair'0.11I^. . 0022096 --,'6000 1?I?÷11048--110480 0^0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5^0.61n122.d0.7^0.8 0.9^1.0^1.1'5000-4000-3000-2000-46. stUmclps^'surface of back of neck'60001828250001-40003000000110.1^0.2^0.31.^ .10.4•.„fill^1-,440 4.. ,, ,^ . 1.i., 1 4._ ' 'it11!1111.11 11, ^I F.Ili^ I iAiLi I^; ,,,,....,„ Of r: I, :f; :4 w ,,,, 1,1,0^.^..^i^!^.^:^I^'^,^,^• • , _. i 1 "It4i4,,litilit^1.ifhirj'ill'111-1 Li."1'-',41,p,m.,.0031.tbo;pr.,1!^1 ,^I-I -• .^- •^-• , .^1 - _, .0.5^0.6 0.7 0.8^0.9^1.0 1 .11n125.d9141 ------91410 0^0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5110kitiO ^stwie41144'.6^0.7^0.8^0.9^1.0^1.147. st6cimalcAn6000-i-^-1-^--I--^--I-!^4- i 1 1 i 4--^-I--I-^--I-^-I-4-1000 --^,1 ^•^jj^11141 11 -it^sit 151.13 ^PArti,^ kiNallik111-44/Lisiii“hmt■ot^11.ii■^ir^ikii^;0.3 0.6^0.7 0.81^,81904101'1',A1..^I^I^ 10 0^0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4^0.5 0.6 0.7^0.8^0.9^1.01n127 ,d5000-0016360—81800.1^0.2048. "iedelim^'he's galloping'18984 194920-94920 0^ 0.1^ 0.2^ 0.3 0.7^ 0.8^ 0.9^ 1.0.^I^. 1^I^•^1^,^,^.0.4 0.5 0.61n129.d.40 0^ 0.1^ 0.2 0.5 0. 6 0.8 0.9-+- I i,6000.^4000:.73000—2000-1000:—I iMAW0.3t f•^,.^•^,0.749. daldmalqw 'train'0.40.2 0.8 1.10.1 0.5 0.70 0 0.3 0.9 1.00.61n183.djli it (1.1.Lii4i4011.^1,,titrii.t50. s6int^'person'6000. ^40003000 —1000 -.—11:y^I. ^,^•tit^I IA13,8.8011%4 Jain ilibt^if ,8000^ 0.112752 —6376-6376 —00^ 0.1......^1^. 1 0.2^0.3 0.4^0.5^0.6^0.7^0.81n185.d51. t'apsUnt^'shoot (s.o.)'0.9^1.0^1.10.200^0.1 0.3^0.4^0.5^0.61n155.d10.9^.0^1.10.7^0.80.7^0.8^0.9^1.0^1.17834 1---7834 —52. lejnc^'he stabbed it'. 10.6.^I^.0.80.7 0.9^1.0^1.1^. ^.^ I^.^. I^.^0 0 0.1^0.2^0.3^0.4 0.7496—° .7--''Ati\4441n157.d53. ni2lcijOqsnc 'he stabbed her nose'-+-50006000 ^uttOW ^ .r'fOrt:1000 H00^ 0.1 0.3^ 0.4 0.5^ 0.60.2 0.8 1.0.96376 —-0.6^ 0.7 0.6^0.9 1.0^ 1.11n179 .d4000 H3000 H2000 H55. np'p'tosEncdt 'he dreamed'0 010384 ---51920.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1. 11-5192.^. .^•r^411000000.-^7-1I11011,11'!a 'I^I0 0^0.1 0.2^0.3^0.^ 0.5^0.6^0.7^0.8^0.9^1.0^1.11n177 .d54. k'ul'enctitn^'Creator'